Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE (COUNCIL OF EUROPE)

Mr. Speaker: I have to ask the leave of the House to be absent on Monday, 20th April, and the following day. I have been invited, together with the Presidents of the Parliaments of all the Member States of the Council of Europe, to a ceremonial sitting of the Consultative Assembly which will take place at 6 p.m. on Monday, 20th April, in Strasbourg, to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the signature of the Statute setting up the Council of Europe. I am advised that I should be present on this occasion, and so, if the House grants me leave. I propose to accept the invitation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BOARD BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 8th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

TSR2 Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much space the TSR2 will require for landing.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): About 600 yards.

Mr. de Freitas: In view of the remarkable possibilities of this aircraft and of

the recent failures of the Government to impress upon our Allies the qualities of our military aircraft, will the Secretary of State do all he can in the course of the development of the TSR2 to give as much information as possible, following the American pattern, so that our Allies may become interested in buying this aircraft?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir.

Aircraft (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent flights of aircraft loaded with nuclear bombs are still continuing over United Kingdom territory.

Mr. Ward: The occasions on which nuclear weapons may be carried by aircraft over this country were described in the full statements made last year by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Swingler: I take it from that Answer that these flights are still continuing. Will the right hon. Gentleman now re-examine this policy? What is the purpose of these flights? Is he not aware that the American authorities have now learned the unwisdom of such flights and have definitely forbidden them over American territory, and why should we not now do likewise?

Mr. Ward: I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman in the House not long ago that I am informed that the Americans have given no such instructions.

Staging Post, Gan (Wages)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state in sterling value the average weekly wage being paid to the labourers working at the Royal Air Force staging post on Gan Island.

Mr. Ward: The sterling value of the average weekly wage on the scale agreed with the Maldivian Government is £1 18s. 6d.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that this is a very low wage indeed to offer to these labourers? Because it is so low, is he paying this wage to the Maldivian Government instead of to the workers who earn it, and can he defend that practice? Does he realise that is a cause of a great deal of the discontent on Gan Island today?

Mr. Ward: We cannot look at this in terms of wage rates in this country. I have explained already that the scale was agreed by the Maldivian Government and also the method of payment.

Education Branch

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force is undermanned overall; and how many redundancies there are in the rank of wing commander and squadron leader for existing established posts.

Mr. Ward: By about 15 per cent. A small number of wing commanders are at present in posts which would normally be filled by squadron leaders, but until the future structure of the Branch is decided in detail it is not possible to say how many will be redundant.

Mr. Johnson: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend to maintain the policy of employing wing commanders and squadron leaders in posts which could be filled by junior officers?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. I hope that when the final structure is approved these wing commanders will be either promoted or become redundant.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force have been allowed to serve beyond the age of 60, and in what rank and on what grounds.

Mr. Ward: One air vice marshal and one group captain. Both have been retained for particular tasks.

Mr. Johnson: While in no way questioning the value of the services given by these officers, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the existing hold-up in promotion, this also does not aggravate to some extent the already serious position?

Mr. Ward: The only effect has been on promotion to group captain and above. In the rank of wing commander there is a small number of over-bearings.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable discontent among junior officers in this branch? When will he be in a position to tell the House of the results of his investigations and review?

Mr. Ward: I apologise for the fact that this is taking rather a long time, but the problem has been complicated by the need to relate our earlier proposals to a change in the requirement. I will make a statement as soon as I can. The important thing is to get the answer right.

Stoke Heath Station

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men are being made redundant at Stoke Heath Royal Air Force Station; what steps are being taken to offer them alternative employment; and if, in the matter of redundancy, he will treat Stoke Heath and Ternhill stations as a unit.

Mr. Ward: One hundred and twenty-four civilians were employed at Stoke Heath. Established staff are being transferred to vacant posts as near as possible to their homes. Wherever possible we have also offered other employment to unestablished staff. Of the 44 who are being discharged as redundant, most were offered employment at Sealand. Stoke Heath and Ternhill have been dealt with separately as regards redundancy in the past and in fairness to the staff at Ternhill we could not now insist on treating them as a unit.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask the Secretary of State what consultation there has been with the trade union in this matter? Is he aware that some of the draftsmen involved have worked on an interchangeable basis between Stoke Heath and Ternhill stations? As men have been taken on quite recently at Ternhill and some men with long service have been made redundant at Stoke Heath, should not this point be considered, and will the right hon. Gentleman consult the trade unions about it?

Mr. Ward: If we are to be fair we must be consistent. We could not suddenly insist that Ternhill should be treated as an extension of Stoke Heath just when the transfer of the maintenance unit from Stoke Heath had caused redundancies.

Thor Missiles

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now had an opportunity of completing his study of the text of the recent statement by General Thomas White, United States


Air Force Chief of Staff, before a United States Senate Committee, that Her Majesty's Government regards Thor missiles in this country as being operational and ready to be fired; and whether it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy that these missiles shall be used merely for training until they are modified as a result of tests in the United States of America.

Mr. Ward: I have now received a verbatim report which I have sent to the hon. Member. General White correctly stated that we have accepted the first emplacement for Thor as operational. This means that the ground equipment has been satisfactorily demonstrated. So far as missiles are concerned, the position remains as stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 18th March.

Mr. de Freitas: While very much welcoming that assurance, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not about time that there was more coordination between him and the United States authorities on Thor, because almost monthly and sometimes even weekly we have these contradictory statements coming out of the United States?

Mr. Ward: I think that very often the apparent contradiction is one of interpretation rather than of what is actually meant.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Cars with Trailers (Speed Limit)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consider raising the present speed limit of 30 miles-per-hour for cars with light trailers.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am not in a position to make a statement on this matter at the moment.

Mr. Wall: Has not this matter been under consideration by my right hon. Friend for nearly a year? Will he bear in mind that this speed limit is now really archaic in modern conditions of brakes and roads?

Mr. Watkinson: If my hon. Friend refers in particular to the towing of boats en trailers, I must inform him that some

boats are very long and constitute a considerable obstacle on the road.

London Transport Executive

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now state whom he proposes to appoint as Chairman of the London Transport Executive in succession to Sir John Elliot; and which members of the Executive have had experience in the organisation of workers in accordance with Schedule 2, relating to provisions as to executives, of the Transport Act, 1947.

Mr. Watkinson: A successor to Sir John Elliot has not yet been appointed. There is one present member of the Executive who has spent a lifetime in work involving the organisation of workers and there are other members of the Executive who have had wide experience in staff matters.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister appreciate the desirability of reaching a quick decision as to who should succeed Sir John Elliot, in view of the difficulties confronting London Transport and the undesirability of having a chairman in charge whose resignation is in his hands? Secondly, whilst it is true that Lord Geddes has spent his life in the organisation of workers, is it not a fact that he is only a part-time member?

Mr. Watkinson: The present circumstances are no different from those of the past. As to the successor to Sir John Elliot, I am anxious to find a man who will perform as able and successful public service as Sir John Elliot, and that may take some little time.

Goods Vehicles (Licences)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of goods vehicle licences which were revoked or suspended, respectively, for offences committed under the Road Traffic Acts during 1958 or the latest available period; and how this number compares with the corresponding period of the previous year.

The Joint Parliamentary, Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): During the twelve months ended 30th September. 1958, twelve licences covering sixteen vehicles were revoked and eiehteen covering thirty-six vehicles were suspended.


During the previous year three licences covering three vehicles were revoked and three covering five vehicles were suspended.

Mr. Davies: While welcoming that in some cases more severe penalties have been imposed for infringement of statutory regulations, may I ask, in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary stated last week that he was in consultation with the licensing authority, that he will consult the licensing authority in regard to the severity of penalties which are being imposed and will see whether it is not desirable to use the sanction of revocation of licence in a far greater number of cases in view of the increase in the number of offences?

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. The Traffic Commissioners and the licensing authority have a statutory independence. I am sure that we can rely upon them to use it in a sensible and judicial way. We should leave this matter to them.

Direction Indicators

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now ready to make regulations with regard to direction indicators; or when he expects to be in a position to do so.

Mr. Nugent: We have decided to recirculate for comment some of our original proposals where substantial modifications seem to be required. Until these comments are received I am not in a position to say when we shall be able to make the regulations to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend recall an answer which he gave to a supplementary question of mine of 2nd April, last year, when he said:
My right hon. Friend has undertaken to make regulations as from the beginning of next year with all new registered vehicles. We have every intention of keeping to that programme, —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1958; Vol. 585, c. 1194.]
Can he say what has delayed this matter?

Mr. Nugent: My memory is not quite as good as that, but I remember the main drift of the question. What has happened is that the replies to our original proposals raised so many complicated points that it has taken longer

than we expected to draft these regulations. It is a complex matter to decide exactly where these signals should be placed, what their intensity should be and so on. We must make sure of that before we make the regulations.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the general interest among many hon. Members, can a copy of the draft regulations be placed in the Library so that hon. Members may study them?

Mr. Nugent: We have not reached the point of making draft regulations yet, but I will see whether it is possible to place in the Library the letters we have sent out to the trade so that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can see what is happening.

Bus Stops

Sir G. Wills: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will ensure that as far as possible the siting of official stopping places for public service vehicles does not contravene the advice given by the Highway Code to drivers of private vehicles.

Mr. Nugent: I am sure that the Traffic Commissioners, local authorities and the police who are normally concerned in the siting of bus stops do have full regard to all the considerations of road safety, including the advice given in the Highway Code.

Sir G. Wills: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a number of cases the advice given on page 12 of the Highway Code is contravened and that a little thought and a little rearrangement of stopping places would add greatly to the safety of pedestrians and of traffic as well?

Mr. Nugent: It is not easy for the bus authorities to arrange the stops to suit both the convenience of the passengers and the necessities of road safety. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases that he feels should be dealt with, I shall be very glad to have them looked at.

Sir G. Wills: I could give my hon. Friend twenty cases in the space of 20 miles.

Mr. Nugent: We are still very willing to look into them if my hon. Friend will let me have them.

Forth and Clyde Canal

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in considering the future of the Forth and Clyde Canal, he will give due regard to the importance of this canal to those fishermen with smaller boats who use the canal when moving to fishing grounds from the east to west coast and vice versa according to the season.

Mr. Watkinson: The position of these fishermen will be taken fully into account when the future of this canal is considered.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will be welcomed by the fishermen, who have sometimes been doubtful whether their interests have received sufficient consideration and who, I think, will now be reassured?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Swing Bridge, Canvey Island

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the swing bridge linking Canvey Island with the mainland is safe for vehicular traffic; how frequently the bridge is inspected; on how many occasions it has developed a mechanical failure in the last twelve months; and what is its expected life.

Mr. Nugent: Essex County Council is the bridge authority and the Council tells me that there have been two mechanical and 14 electrical failures in the last twelve months, but the Council is installing new electrical machinery this summer which will substantially reduce the chance of electrical failure. The bridge is inspected at least 12 times a year, and the Essex County Council tells me that it is satisfied that it will be safe for normal loading for at least ten years.

Mr. Braine: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether, bearing in mind that £100,000 will be spent on an improved access scheme which does not include the provision of a bridge, he is satisfied that this money will not be wasted?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. We are.

Level Crossing, Malton

Sir A. Spearman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give priority to the elimination of the bottleneck at the railway level crossing at Malton on the Scarborough-York road, in view of the importance of this to Scarborough and the surrounding district.

Mr. Nugent: We intend to eliminate this bottleneck by constructing the eastern arm of the Malton by-pass. It is not yet possible to say when the scheme can be included in our programme, but we hope to begin its preparation this summer by advertising the order under the Trunk Roads Act to establish the line.

Sir A. Spearman: In considering the priorities, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a delay of as much as 40 minutes in the summer because Scarborough is a place to which many people want to go?

Mr. Nugent: We understand the salubrious attraction of Scarborough. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pressed this matter last year. We have looked at it very closely and we are well aware of the need to relieve this condition as soon as we can.

Accidents (Protective Headgear)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) from what sources outside his Department he has received advice on protective headgear designed to minimise injury to the head in road accidents;

(2) by what methods he will publicise the availability of a protective cap or hat which will afford some protection against injury to the head in road accidents;

(3) what steps he will take to co-ordinate the efforts being made variously to improve road safety, notably by the Road Research Laboratories of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the motor car manufacturers, the insurance companies, the medical profession, and the British Hat and Allied Feltmakers Research Association.

Mr. Nugent: The Road Research Laboratory, which co-ordinates activities in this field, has done most valuable work on protective helmets for motor cyclists and also on materials for protective caps for motorists and their passengers. This


provided the basis of the Regulations on protective helmets for motor cyclists which we made in 1957. It would be premature as yet to set up a standard for protective caps or hats.

Mr. Moss: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recollect that last week he gave figures of fatal casualties in 1957 which showed that no less than 63·3 per cent. were due to head injuries? Will he, therefore, undertake to do some research into this subject and, when he is satisfied that protective headgear is available for the use of motorists, to give some publicity to the fact for the better safety of motorists?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. We understand, of course, the significance of the large number of fatalities from head injuries to drivers and passengers in motor cars. When we are satisfied from the research now proceeding that these hats or protective helmets for passengers and drivers are good enough, we shall certainly be prepared to consider the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.

A.40, Bucks-Middlesex Border

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now able to announce the date upon which the construction of a second carriageway of the trunk road A.40 over the Bucks-Middlesex border will start.

Mr. Nugent: Preparatory work on a second carriageway for trunk road A.40 near Denham is well under way. Construction should start before the end of this year.

Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend bring forward as much as he can the start of work on this very dangerous stretch of road?

Mr. Nugent: We hope to let the contract by the middle of the summer.

Main Roads (Speed Limit)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce greatly reduced speeds on main roads during the peak periods, when people cross in large numbers and when children must cross to and from school.

Mr. Nugent: I do not think a temporary speed limit of less than 30 m.p.h. during limited times of the day would be practicable or enforceable.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If this action cannot be taken, what action will the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend take to reduce the anxiety in the minds of parents whose children have to cross dangerous roads daily to and from school?

Mr. Nugent: Far the best solution is the school-crossing patrol and asking the local police to do their best to enforce the 30 m.p.h. limit whenever they are.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give instructions which will result in reduced speeds on the main road through Trent Vale in the City of Stoke on Trent and in the replacement of all guard rails at once.

Mr. Nugent: A speed limit of 30 m.p.h. is already in operation on this road, and I understand that the county borough council recently requested the chief constable to concentrate on its enforcement. Following completion of the recent major improvements to the road, guard rails have been re-installed, in agreement with the county borough council, at all points where they are necessary.

Birmingham-Preston Motorway

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will treat as a matter of urgency the need for the completion of the new trunk road which will relieve the main road through Trent Vale, in the City of Stoke on Trent.

Mr. Nugent: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the proposed Birmingham-Preston motorway. A draft Order has already been published for Staffordshire, and we hope soon to be able to publish draft Orders for Cheshire and Lancashire. Three large viaducts on this motorway will take longer than the other work, and tenders have already been invited for work on them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is good news which the people will appreciate, but can any more be done to facilitate the work being carried out to ease the traffic on the roads?

Mr. Nugent: We realise that this will be a great blessing to the hon. Member's constituency. We are proceeding with all speed with the preparatory work.

Toll Bridges

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many bridges have been relieved of toll payments since 1st January, 1955.

Mr. Nugent: We have not yet redeemed any toll bridges on trunk roads nor contributed to the freeing of any tolls on other bridges since 1st January, 1955.

Sir L. Ropner: Will my hon. Friend please note that I did not ask about trunk roads but about all toll bridges? What is the reply?

Mr. Nugent: The reply is in the second part of my Answer which is:
… nor contributed to the freeing of any tolls on other bridges since 1st January, 1955.

Sir L. Ropner: That means that the Ministry has kept very strictly to the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is really well aware of the inconvenience caused by the existence of a toll bridge between Selby and Barlby?

Mr. Nugent: We certainly are, and we have great hopes of being able to redeem the toll there. Unfortunately, the cost is so high that we are unable to do it at present.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not the original answer of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary shocking? Can he tell us what is the policy of the Government in regard to toll bridges, which are a complete anachronism today? No service is provided by most of them, many are kept in a poor state of repair, and the sooner they are purchased and eliminated the better.

Mr. Nugent: We shall buy them out as and when the cost of doing so fits into the broad picture of our road programme.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I understood it was the Government's policy to encourage private enterprise to build bridges and to charge tolls. Could my hon. Friend clear up this misunderstanding?

Mr. Nugent: In special cases, Sir.

Doncaster By-pass

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made on the Doncaster by-pass road; how many workers are at present employed on the undertaking; and what is the time-table to which the authorities are working.

Mr. Nugent: Tenders were invited during January and are due to be received today. As my right hon. Friend told the House last week, we hope that work on the by-pass, which will be a motor road and take about two years to complete, will begin in the early summer.

Mr. Williams: Can the Minister explain why there is such shocking delay in starting this important scheme? Can the hon. Gentleman remind the Minister of Transport of his experience when he tried to get through Doncaster and could not?

Mr. Nugent: I do not accept that there has been a shocking delay. We are pressing on extremely well with our road schemes, and I think everyone will welcome this one.

Mr. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when physical work will start on the scheme?

Mr. Nugent: I answered that question at the end of the substantive Answer. It will begin in the early summer.

Roundabouts

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in response to requests from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the local road safety committees, he will now give some general guidance to motorists as to who has right of way at traffic roundabouts.

Mr. Nugent: The Departmental Committee on Road Safety is making a further examination of this subject in the light of all known facts, including the practice and experience in other countries. Until that study is complete the advice the Committee has given so far stands, namely, that it is not in the interests of road safety to prescribe a priority rule at roundabouts.

Sir A. Hurd: Is not the view widely held by experienced and knowledgeable


people that it would help if the Ministry of Transport could give guidance about the right of way at roundabouts, especially now that we are having many more constructed? Also, could we have the benefit of the experience of other countries, such as France, which give a right of way?

Mr. Nugent: That is what we are considering. We are about to collect information on what is being done in other countries. I am not at all certain that where there is Priorité à droite, or something similar, it is altogether satisfactory, but we will collect the information and if, in the light of this, it appears that we should make a change we will do so.

Mr. Champion: At one roundabout, at least, there is a sign "Give way to traffic coming from the right". Is that experimental, or is it illegal for such notices to be displayed?

Mr. Nugent: They are probably unofficial.

London-Yorkshire Motorway (Leicestershire)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he proposes to make a decision with regard to the commencement of work on the portion of the London-Yorkshire motorway in Leicestershire in view of his recent visit to Leicester.

Mr. Watkinson: As soon as the necessary statutory preliminaries have been completed.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister realise the considerable number of people in Leicestershire, and especially in Leicester, who think that all the delay is due to the fact that the Minister is peeved—and, if I may say so, he is not entitled to be peeved—about the refusal to accept the first road? When does he expect the work on this road to be commenced? Has he accepted it?

Mr. Watkinson: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Neither I nor my Ministry is peeved about this. The delay is due to the local opposition, probably quite justified, to the two previous lines of this road.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that the road will pass near my home in

Leicestershire, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the local inhabitants that work in the Charnwood Forest area will be carried out with the least possible disturbance to the amenities of the forest, so that the local residents can enjoy them?

Mr. Watkinson: That seems to be a good answer to the previous question.

Mr. Janner: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply I have received, propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Barton Bridge

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has considered the recommendation of the jury at the inquest upon the four men who lost their lives through the accident on the new high level Barton Bridge on 19th February; and how far he intends to make it a condition of grant towards such projects that effect is given to that recommendation.

Mr. Nugent: We have made a grant towards this scheme, but its execution is the sole responsibility of the Lancashire County Council. The conditions of contract applying to major road works and bridges provide that the works should be constantly supervised by the contractor or by the engineer named in the contract.

Mr. Storey: In view of the fact that, according to the recommendation of the jury, it appears that there was not proper supervision in this case, will my hon. Friend make representations to his agents in similar instances that proper supervision must be carried out, and will he take steps to see that it is?

Mr. Nugent: We have ascertained that this condition was included in the contract. At present Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate is investigating the circumstances of the accident and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour shortly. We shall, of course, consult my right hon. Friend and be advised by him if there is any further action we should take.

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what effect the recent accident to the new Barton Bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal


has had on the time-table for the construction of the new Manchester by-pass; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: I am informed by the Lancashire County Council that the probable effect is to put back the estimated date of completion by two to three months, that is from November this year to next January or February. This represents the time required to replace the 330 tons of fabricated steelwork damaged in the accident.

Mr. Storey: In view of the great importance of the new bridge to both the industry and the workers in Trafford Park, will my hon. Friend take all the steps he can to ensure that Lancashire County Council does not delay unnecessarily in getting the bridge finished?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir, I am sure it is most anxious to do so.

Parking Meters

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made in extending the parking-meter scheme to other parts of the West End and the City of London.

Mr. Watkinson: An Order authorising St. Marylebone Borough Council to install parking meters in south-west St. Marylebone has been laid before Parliament, Westminster City Council has asked to extend its present metered zone to the whole of Mayfair, and Holborn Borough Council has asked for an order covering the north-western part of its borough. Other Metropolitan boroughs are known to have schemes under active consideration.

Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that it is almost impossible for short-term parkers to find anywhere to park in Central London unless they get there before nine o'clock in the morning, except where there are parking meters? Will he do everything possible to encourage local authorities to bring forward schemes to provide off-street parking for the long-term parker?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is becoming more and more obvious what a success the first initial, small parking-meter scheme has

been. I will do anything I can within my proper constitutional power to help local authorities to bring these schemes forward.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to produce a profit-and-loss account for these meters in due course?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not a matter for my Ministry, because this income goes to the local authority and not to the Government.

Hyde Park Corner Scheme

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further progress has been made with the proposal to reconstruct Hyde Park Corner, Park Lane and Marble Arch.

Mr. Watkinson: The Government have approved the scheme prepared by the London County Council, and is making a grant of over £4 million towards the cost, which is estimated at £5·8 million. The preparatory work of diverting the mains and cables under Hyde Park Corner started last September, and I understand that the London County Council hopes to begin the main works this autumn. These will include the conversion of Park Lane into a twin carriageway road, greatly enlarged one-way systems at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch and a four-lane underpass between Knightsbridge and Piccadilly. The London County Council expects to complete the scheme, which will be the most comprehensive road improvement in London for fifty years, in 1962.

Captain Pilkington: While welcoming the progress made, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he expects very much traffic dislocation when the later stages are reached?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. and gallant Friend correctly surmises that we cannot carry out a big scheme like this without some dislocation. I am glad to say that the London County Council and my Ministry are trying to work out a special scheme of traffic diversion which will minimise the difficulty.

Birmingham Inner Ring Road

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now announce the date when he will


authorise the scheme for the second part of the Birmingham Inner Ring Road.

Mr. Watkinson: My Department informed the Birmingham Corporation yesterday of my approval of their scheme to provide dual 30-foot carriageways between Upper Priory and the junction of Snow Hill with Great Charles Street, and the grant to them of up to £791,000 towards the cost, which is estimated at over £1 million. The completion of this part will provide a workable inner ring road system.

Mr. Gurden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that excellent news, may I ask him when he expects the work to be started and how long it will take to complete? Further, can he say whether the first part of the inner ring road is up to schedule?

Mr. Watkinson: The first part is on schedule, so far as I know. This is, of course, a matter for the Birmingham authorities and not for my Ministry. My job and the responsibility of the Government in this case is to provide £791,000, of which we notified Birmingham yesterday.

Blackwall Tunnel

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further information he will now give concerning the present position with regard to the duplication of Blackwall Tunnel.

Mr. Watkinson: My Department have told the London County Council of my approval of the council's proposals for the duplication of the Blackwall Tunnel and the Government are making a grant of nearly £5½ million, that is 75 per cent. of the total cost, which is estimated at approximately £7½ million. The council expects that work will begin in the autumn and that it will take about five years to complete.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this information will give very great satisfaction to many thousands of people who are inconvenienced day after day?

Mr. Watkinson: This is a very important improvement, and I am glad that the Government have made it possible for the L.C.C. to get on with it.

Pedestrian Crossings, Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he has sent to the letter of 6th March, 1959, sent to him by the Town Clerk, Liverpool, with reference to the refusal of the divisional road engineer to agree to pedestrian crossings at the junction of Queen's Drive, Menlove Avenue, Allerton Road, Liverpool, against the unanimous opinion of all responsible departments of the council and the council itself.

Mr. Nugent: We have replied that the Divisional Road Engineer will review, and report on, the matter when the permanent works for improvement of the junction layout are completed. In his letter to the council of 2nd February he had already expressed his intention of doing so.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that the only person who disagrees with the requirement of a pedestrian crossing seems to be his divisional road engineer, and that the statement he made was that the permanent alteration would make it completely unnecessary for pedestrian crossings to be put in? In view of the fact that his reply has been sent in those terms, will he please take notice that the local authority will hold him responsible in the meantime for any pedestrian who is injured or killed at this particular spot, due to the fact that there is no place at which they are able to cross the road?

Mr. Nugent: I cannot accept the whole of that responsibility.

Mrs. Braddock: The hon. Gentleman will get it.

Mr. Nugent: I take note of the hon. Lady's charge. The fact is that almost every day we are asked to provide pedestrian crossings and if we agreed to them there would soon be so many that nobody would take any notice of them. We have to be most cautious before we agree to new ones. I assure the hon. Lady that we will take the greatest care to listen to the local views.

Mr. Tilney: On a point of order. As the district referred to in the hon. Lady's Question is in my constituency, am I precluded from asking a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I did not observe the hon. Member rise.

Eastern Avenue Extension

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) if the precise line of the Eastern Avenue Extension, through the borough of Leyton, has now been decided; and whether a public inquiry will be held in order to receive representations from affected householders and others;

(2) approximately, how much the construction of the Eastern Avenue Extension will cost; when it is estimated that construction work will begin and the construction be concluded, in view of the line now being settled; when it will be known what houses and other properties will be affected and demolished; and what compensation will be available to house-owners in those thoroughfares affected by the diversion of traffic through them while Eastern Avenue extension work is proceeding.

Mr. Nugent: We are now considering the objections received to the proposed line of the Eastern Avenue Extension, which was published in draft last October. A detailed investigation of these objections is required and we have not yet decided whether to hold a public inquiry. Which houses will eventually be affected cannot be known until an order has been made. The present estimated cost of the scheme is about £2,000,000. Constructional work is not likely to start for some years. There are no powers to pay compensation to people living in streets used by diverted traffic.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been prolonged for many years and that it has caused a great deal of embarrassment and apprehension to a large number of my constituents? Will he not at least guarantee that there will be a public inquiry at which they can present their case, which would at least to some extent mollify their disturbance? Secondly, is he aware that traffic is increasing in my constituency, which is a kind of bottleneck or funnel, and will he therefore consider providing some means to alleviate the pressure on this district?

Mr. Nugent: Of course, we are well aware of the traffic difficulty. That is why we contemplate this road improvement. With regard to a public inquiry, I would ask the hon. Member to give us a little longer to consider the objections, and then we can consider generally the problem of

the line before we decide whether or not to have a public inquiry. I am certainly well aware of the large number of house tenants and owner-occupiers affected, and I will bear in mind his request.

Road Safety

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the proposed increased expenditure on road development and the resulting increase in the number of cars using the roads, what further action he is taking to give publicity to the need for conduct upon the roads which will promote safety for all road users beyond that already announced for 1959.

Mr. Nugent: Publicity for road safety is organised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in a series of quarterly campaigns, presented in the main by the local authority road safety committees, who number more than 1,000. In addition, a national campaign is promoted each year. The theme this year is "Be a Better Driver". These campaigns are supported and amplified by the help we receive from the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this road safety message goes wide enough to reach the whole community and is not just concentrated on a few posters issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents?

Mr. Nugent: Yes. Sir. We are now receiving very great help from television. Last year over 1,000 showings were made of our television "shorts", which are used as "fillers" in the programmes, which would cost, I suppose, several hundreds of thousands of pounds if we actually had to pay for the time. I am confident that these road safety messages and these short films of a quarter of a minute to two minutes, shown in special cartoon form, have been seen widely in 9 million homes. We are very grateful both to the television people and to the Shell Company who are helping us with them.

Mr. Strauss: While agreeing that these television performances are most successful and most valuable, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the amount of money granted direct to local societies for local activities is sufficient? Is it keeping up with the yearly increase


in a number of accidents, and should not the contribution be substantially increased to enable societies to conduct more effective local campaigns?

Mr. Nugent: I think it is sufficient. We look at it very closely every year, though a case can always be made out for giving more. We have been very greatly helped by the television people in disseminating this publicity, and I think that this form is really an effective one.

Whipps Cross, Leyton (Traffic)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what sample counts have been made in respect of traffic increase now, compared with five years and one year ago, passing Whipps Cross, Leyton.

Mr. Nugent: None, Sir. At Dalston Lane, Hackney, which is the nearest census point on A.104, traffic increased 9 per cent. between 1956 and 1958.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the hon. Gentleman take action to see that a traffic count is taken in view of the fact, to which I referred just now, that part of Leyton is becoming a very congested bottleneck? Is he further aware that, in spite of what he said in answer to a previous Question, the number of pedestrian crossings is quite inadequate in view of the very great increase in traffic in that part of Leyton?

Mr. Nugent: I will ask our divisional road engineer to give us a report on that point and will then see, in the light of what he says, what further action we can take to help.

Road Programme

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many miles of trunk road will be laid down under the present road programme.

Mr. Watkinson: Since the end of 1954 about 90 miles of new trunk road have been completed. It is expected that about 180 miles will be finished in the next two years. In addition, preparatory work is going ahead on some 840 miles.

London-Colchester Road

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how

much money has been spent in the last eight years on the London to Colchester road; and what are the comparable figures for the London to Brighton road.

Mr. Nugent: Over the past five financial years, the period for which figures are most easily available, about £1,708,000 has been spent on the London to Colchester trunk road compared with about £2,003,000 on the London to Brighton trunk road. This latter figure includes about £837,000 spent on the Gatwick Diversion, which was not paid out of the Roads Vote.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London-Colchester Road serves the important industrial areas of Ipswich, Colchester and Chelmsford, as well as a large seaside area, and that there is an impression that it has not been getting a fair proportion of the funds that are available for improvement, as compared with other roads, like the London-Brighton road? Will he assure me that this is not going to occur in future?

Mr. Nugent: The figure I have given my hon. Friend should be some reassurance to him. I may add that over the course of the next three years we expect some £3 million of new work on that road to be authorised, so perhaps that will be an additional reassurance to him.

Mr. Lagden: Could my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Brentwood by-pass will shortly be started, and will he now accept the offer I made a year ago to view the enormous traffic at weekends at Gallows Corner by helicopter, at his expense?

Mr. Nugent: "No" to the latter question; I will look into the former.

Traffic Signals, Wembley

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for installing traffic signals at the junction of Harrow Road, Wembley, with Bridgewater Road and District Road.

Mr. Nugent: We have received no proposals from Middlesex County Council, which is the highway authority, for signal control at this junction, and I understand that it does not think traffic signals are likely to prove a satisfactory


solution. It has, however, a scheme for a roundabout, to be put in hand when funds are available.

Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that roundabouts eventually get so clogged with traffic that they have to be replaced by traffic lights in any road where there is great congestion of traffic? Will he have this matter investigated to see whether traffic lights can be installed as they are just outside Buckingham Palace at the Buckingham Palace Road-Birdcage Walk junction, where a similar problem arises?

Mr. Nugent: There are some complex traffic turning movements at this junction. I think we can leave it to Middlesex County Council to deal with the matter adequately.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Victoria Line

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what basis he estimates the Victoria Line would operate at a loss of £3 million a year; and to what extent that sum includes interest on its capital cost.

Mr. Watkinson: The British Transport Commission informs me that, estimating the cost of the Victoria Line at about £55 million, between £2¼ million and £2½ million, depending on interest rates, of the estimated annual loss will represent interest charges on capital.

Mr. Davies: Would not the Minister agree that this adds justification to the argument that the Victoria Line should be proceeded with by the Government as a Government project, in the same way as roads are built, so that the interest charged to London Transport could be dispensed with? Further, does he not consider, in view of the long time that construction would take, that it is difficult to make these estimates so far ahead, and that by the time the line is constructed the number of people desiring to travel underground because of the increased traffic congestion will be so great that the loss may not be nearly as substantial as is suggested?

Mr. Watkinson: All this question of loss is relevant, but what is more relevant and important at the moment is whether £55 million laid out on a new tube would

pay a better traffic dividend than £55 million laid out on surface road works, which is the problem that the London Travel Committee is grappling with at the moment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whilst not disagreeing with my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether an estimate has been made of the economic savings which might be achieved by improvement in communications here?

Mr. Watkinson: That is exactly what the London Travel Committee is studying; in what way the expenditure of this large sum of money would pay the best dividend as regards public convenience and everything else.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Airways (Maps)

Sir R. Conant: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, whenever alterations are made in the authorised extents of airways, he will ensure that such alterations do not become effective till maps showing such changes are available to the public.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Hay): Changes in the authorised extent of the airways are promulgated in advance by printed Notices to Airmen (Notams) with a sketch map. The aeronautical information on topographical maps is amended in new editions. As efficiency of operation and aircraft safety are concerned, essential alterations in the airways cannot be delayed until new flying maps are on sale.

Sir R. Conant: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, while flying with a false map may be very interesting, it is extremely dangerous? Can he ensure that the maps are really capable of being overprinted and are available to the public before they become effective?

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend had better study my answer. We have every reason to believe that the process we use for NOTAMS, with a sketch map attached to the Notam, is completely effective.

Mr. Beswick: Can the hon. Gentleman make certain that these Notams are in the possession of private fliers and


glider pilots, who are exactly the people who ought not to be flying in extended airways?

Mr. Hay: We cannot be certain that every person who will take up an aircraft is in possession of the latest available NOTAM, but I believe that there are regulations which make it an offence in certain circumstances if the flier has not this sort of information.

London-Moscow Air Services

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now make a statement about the proposed London-Moscow air service.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that an Exchange of Notes, bringing into effect the Air Services Agreement between this country and the U.S.S.R., was signed in Moscow yesterday. I am hopeful that services will be able to start early this summer.
The TU 104 aircraft which the Soviet airline intends to use will, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, employ operating techniques and procedures designed to minimise the disturbance caused by noise to residents near London Airport, including the use of only one runway for take-off. The operations of the TU 104 into London Airport will be reviewed as soon as sufficient experience has been gained to enable us to judge whether the initial conditions of operation should be varied.

Commander Scott-Miller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, which I am sure will be very gladly received, may I ask him whether the agreement means that B.E.A. will be operating at the same time? May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing this new commercial link with Russia which, surely, can do nothing but further trade relationships, and help to remove the differences and difficulties, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so valiantly struggling to do?

Mr. Watkinson: This will be a full reciprocal service, and, of course, that means that B.E.A. will be running a counterpart service to Moscow. As to the second half of my hon. and gallant

Friend's question, I have to be satisfied that these new jet aircraft do not create conditions which are intolerable for people living round the airport. I am very grateful to Aeroflot for meeting, as far as it is humanly possible for them to do, our rather strict requirements.

Mr. Hunter: In view of the complaints by residents around London Airport about noise from all these new jet airliners, irrespective of nationality, will the right hon. Gentleman watch the position very carefully indeed in the interests of local residents?

Aircraft Accident, Prestwick (Captain Hankin)

Sir L. Heald: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) whether he is aware that the Chief Inspector of Accidents, in breach of the provisions of Regulation 7 (5) of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, 1951, has ignored three successive requests made to him in writing on 4th November and 12th December, 1958, and 9th January, 1959, by Captain W. H. Nankin, the pilot of a British European Airways aircraft which crashed at Prestwick on 28th April, 1958, that he should be permitted to be fully heard, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, before the Chief Inspector made his report on the crash and what action he will take to protect the rights of Captain Hankin;
(2) whether he was aware, when he considered the report of the Chief Inspector on the crash of a British European Airways aircraft at Prestwick on 28th April, 1958, that the pilot, Captain W. H. Hankin, who had over 10,000 hours flying experience, had urgently submitted that a public inquiry should be held, having regard to certain important considerations of public safety and confidence arising from the use of a type of altimeter which is now being modified; and to what extent he took this fact into consideration; and
(3) why he has not ordered a public inquiry into the crash of a British European Airways aircraft at Prestwick on 28th April, 1958, having regard both to the right of the pilot to defend himself and to the considerations of public safety and confidence that are involved.

Mr. Watkinson: The letters from Captain Hankin were fully discussed with him by the Chief Inspector of Accidents and members of his staff. I am satisfied that Captain Hankin was afforded, under Regulation 7 (5) of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, 1951, every opportunity to make a statement and give evidence to the Chief Inspector and, had he so desired, to produce and examine witnesses.
I was aware, when considering the report of the Chief Inspector, of Captain Hankin's request for a public inquiry. In considering whether or not I should order a public inquiry, I most carefully considered the questions of public safety and of responsibility. As the Chief Inspector's investigation, at an early stage, clearly established the cause of the accident and as no lives were lost, and no passengers were involved, I decided that, in these circumstances, I should not be justified in ordering a formal public inquiry.

Sir L. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a copy of a document which Captain Hankin was pressed to sign in circumstances which are sometimes referred to as a "blood chit," which stated that he did not desire to exercise rights open to him under the Regulations and that he twice refused to sign it? In those circumstances, is it not a fact that the report of the Chief Inspector contains a statement in paragraph 7 to the effect that the Regulations have been complied with, which is false? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about it?

Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The position is as I stated in my Answer to the three Questions, which I have very carefully considered. The facts are as I then said, that I am satisfied that Captain Hankin had every opportunity to discuss the letters which were written to the Chief Inspector with him and with his officials. He could have called witnesses if he wished to do so. As to the issue of a public inquiry, I have given the reasons why I decided it was not in this case appropriate.

Mr. Beswick: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman recalls the quite categorical assurance given in the House on 14th July, 1954, in which the hon.

Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Profumo) said:
My right hon. Friend has decided to extend the existing criteria of a court investigation to include accidents in which it may appear from the preliminary report of the Chief Inspector that such measure of blame may be attached to an inndividual as seriously to prejudice his career."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 464.]
In view of the fact that this captain has had his career most seriously prejudiced and that he had asked for these facilities to be extended to him, why does the Minister take his present stand?

Mr. Watkinson: The Answer then given, which I carefully looked up was, as the hon. Member said, that one of the criteria the Minister must take into account is the question of the position of the captain of the aircraft. I most carefully considered that, as I have said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend, and still came to the conclusion that the public inquiry was not in anyone's interest.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As this was an almost unique accident, happening at night and all the crew surviving, does not my right hon. Friend think it would be better when there are survivors to take full advantage of the fact that they are there to give full evidence in public? As this man had flown something like 10,000 hours and the first officer had flown over 5,000 hours and the only statement made was while he was in hospital, will my right hon. Friend review the matter and see that it is fully ventilated publicly?

Mr. Watkinson: The purpose of accident investigation, as I think my hon. Friend knows, is not to ascertain who was responsible, but to establish clearly the cause of the accident in order that any remedial action might be taken over other aircraft and other services. The cause of the accident was clearly established and clearly set out in the Inspector's report, which, of course, is available and was published.

Sir L. Heald: While making it quite clear that I do not accept my right hon. Friend's statement with regard to the letter of complaint, may I ask him a supplementary question in regard to a different matter, dealt with in Questions Nos. 48 and 49? Is he aware that as long ago as 1954 officials of his Department were made aware through their


membership of the group of I.A.T.A., which reported on the matter, of the danger created by the possibility of misreading an altimeter, but that nothing was done to warn pilots or controllers until this accident took place? Does he not think that that is a very serious matter indeed?

Mr. Watkinson: I should think so if that were the fact. I regret to differ from my right hon. and learned Friend, but the fact is that a great deal of action has been taken to try to improve the presentation of the altimeter dial as presented to the pilot. The altimeter dial in use in this particular Viscount had been modified in that respect and had a new and redesigned series of pointers to try to make an error by the captain of the aircraft less likely. This has been a constant difficulty in aircraft, not only in this country but all over the world. That is why I have recently set up a further committee to see whether we can make further improvements. To say that no action was taken on this matter is, I am afraid, not correct.

Mr. Beswick: The Minister said that the captain had an opportunity to make a further statement. Is he aware that when Captain Hankin was invited to make a statement, he asked if he could first read the evidence on which the charges against him were based and he was refused permission to read that evidence? In that case, he said he would refuse to make a statement. Is not this an entirely unsatisfactory method of obtaining the truth? Why is the Minister so obstinate about it?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member has given me the opportunity to say that no charges were made at any time against Captain Hankin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is perfectly true; there were no charges at all. As to what he was shown, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) knows quite well, he was shown the information written by my Chief Inspector of Accidents. That is the normal procedure. No departure has taken place from the normal procedure of dealing with an accident. The duty of my inspector and my Department is to get at the facts, and they are normally set out in the report.

Sir L. Heald: May I ask my right hon. Friend quite specifically, does he or does he not say that pilots were warned before

the accident of the danger arising from the altimeter which had been known to his Department for four years?

Mr. Watkinson: What I quite clearly and specifically say is that every possible step has been taken to make known to pilots the danger of misreading an altimeter dial, including instructions issued by B.E.A. to all its pilots.

Sir L. Heald: I beg to give notice that, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the answers given, I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity when the House resumes after Easter.

Air Transport Pilots

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals he is now considering for the future recruitment and training of civil air transport pilots; and when he expects to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend is at present considering proposals for this purpose, the importance of which he fully appreciates, but he is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea of what proposals he is considering, and can he tell us whether he is contemplating using the services of the Airways Flying Club, which is a non-profit-making and very efficient organisation with a proven experience in training pilots?

Mr. Hay: The proposals to which the Answer related were those referred to in the Question. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, I am not in a position to make a statement today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the first week after the Easter Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 7TH APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
WEDNESDAY, 8TH APRIL, AND THURSDAY, 9TH APRIL—General debate on the Budget and the Economic Situation, which will be continued and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 13th April.
FRIDAY, 10TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Sir, perhaps I may make a short statement on Oral Questions.
The House is aware that recently there have been representations about further opportunities for asking Questions on matters affecting the Ministry of Labour.
After discussion through the usual channels, it has been decided that after the Easter Recess Ministry of Labour Questions should be answered twice weekly—on Mondays and Wednesdays. It is hoped that this change will commend itself to hon. Members.

PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (DISCUSSIONS, EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the visits which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have paid to Paris and Bonn. Ottawa and Washington.
I must begin by expressing once again the gratitude of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself for the forbearance which the House has shown to us. I fear that these journeys and our visit to Moscow have meant that we have been absent from the House of Commons for the greater part of a month.
Our discussions both in Europe and in North America have, of course, centred upon the urgent problems which face us in Europe. The most urgent question was that of procedure. On this, I feel that we made very satisfactory progress in Paris and Bonn. Then, in Washington the President and I agreed on the main points of our replies to the latest Soviet Note. The process of consultation with our N.A.T.O. Allies is not quite complete. However, we hope that the Western replies will be delivered in the course of tomorrow. They will explain our ideas on the method and timing of negotiation both as regards a meeting of

Foreign Ministers proposed for May and as regards a meeting of heads of Government later in the summer.
In addition to the procedure, we had considerable discussion in Paris, Bonn and in the United States on the substance. We did not try to work out in detail a final Western position on all these problems, but we had useful preliminary discussions on the line of approach. There will be a further opportunity for discussing and agreeing the details of the Western position in Washington next week—first at the tripartite and quadripartite meetings of Foreign Ministers and then in the full N.A.T.O. Council.
Meanwhile there is a basic principle to which we must hold firm. We must maintain, in regard to West Berlin, a position which will permit the 2¼ million inhabitants to live the life of their own choice.
We also discussed the suggestions for some zone of inspection and limitation of armaments such as was referred to in the communiqué issued after my visit to Moscow.
In Washington and Ottawa we also considered a number of other subjects such as the work of the Geneva Conference on the Suspension of Nuclear Tests, which is now temporarily adjourned.
Among the other matters which I raised with President Eisenhower were certain questions of trade and economics, some of which especially affect our interests. I reiterated my conviction that only the economic interdependence of the free world can give us all the expanding basis on which to build prosperity.
Throughout these talks my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have felt deeply grateful for the friendliness and frankness with which we were everywhere received.
I know that the House will wish me also to pay a tribute to Mr. Dulles. We were fortunate to have two meetings with him and I cannot too much admire the courage and spirit which he is showing.
Finally, I should perhaps tell the House that we have, of course, kept the other Commonwealth Governments informed throughout these talks and will continue to do so in the months ahead.
The problems which divide the West from the Soviet Union and its allies are certainly complex. I do not believe that


they are insoluble. I am certain that we must make the most serious efforts to resolve them by negotiation. That process of negotiation is now wall under way, and I hope that the House will feel that our journeys have contributed to this result.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I, first, associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute which the Prime Minister has paid to Mr. Dulles in his grave illness?
Although I appreciate that the Prime Minister was not able today to add very much to what has already appeared in the Press, may I ask him two questions? First, is it now definitely agreed among the Western Powers that, whatever may be the outcome of the Foreign Ministers' conference, they will agree to a Summit Conference? Secondly, will he say whether the Western Powers are also agreed on the proposal for a zone of inspection and limitation of armaments, to which he referred in his statement, and which was also dealt with in the Moscow communiqué?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the question, I think that I ought not to say anything in detail before the presentation of the joint Note to the Soviet Government, which, I hope, will take place tomorrow afternoon. As regards the likelihood of a Summit Conference, without prejudging the terms of that Note I can say that everybody seems to think that there will be one.
The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question was one of the questions which we discussed and on which much more detailed work will have to be done and more definite positions taken up. That will be for discussion not only with the three Western Powers, but with all the N.A.T.O. Allies. I hope that progress may be made in reaching a position on that in the course of the Washington discussions, which will last through most of next week.

Mr. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister tell the House, with respect to the Geneva discussions on the suspension of nuclear tests and methods of inspection and control, whether there is complete agreement between the Western Powers as to suspension and the extension of methods of control?

The Prime Minister: There is agreement as to what we are trying to get. There has been an adjournment for a fortnight and I hope that progress will be made after the Conference reassembles.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Prime Minister able to tell the House that what is holding up agreement at present is not a difference of opinion among the Western Powers, but between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What is holding it up at present is the question of the veto on the control inspection team.

Mr. Gaitskell: Reference was made in the Moscow communiqué to some new ideas on this subject which the Prime Minister himself had put forward in Moscow. What I think we want to know, if the Prime Minister can tell us, is whether these new ideas have been accepted by the American, French and West German Governments.

The Prime Minister: All those ideas are being discussed, but they all depend upon the acceptance in principle of an effective system of control. So long as there is an absolute veto of one country against the inspection of any complaints that may be made, all these ideas fall to the ground.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether President Eisenhower reacted favourably to my right hon. Friend's comments on the interchange of trade between our two great countries, as this is of such vital importance not only to us but to world trade as well?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I had a discussion both with the President and with the Secretary of the Treasury. I am quite sure that our point of view is fully known to them and that they have a great deal of sympathy with it. I also took the opportunity to discuss some of these matters with some of the leading members of Congress.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Prime Minister at liberty to say whether, in his discussions on trade and economics with President Eisenhower, he brought to the President's notice the situation that is arising in Europe owing to the unfortunate position assumed by the Common Market Powers in their refusal to consider a wider free trade area?

The Prime Minister: That is rather a different question, and one which we must consider in the next stages in that discussion, but I do not think that it immediately affected the visit I had to pay last week.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the Prime Minister say whether the desirability of effectively associating the United Nations with any solution of the Berlin problem has now been accepted by all four Western Governments?

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is one of the questions on which we want to decide a position to put forward in negotiation, and I think that it needs carefully working out. First, we have to work out what we want, secondly what we might be willing to accept, and then proceed to the negotiation. But I do not think that it would be wise to publish all the details of exactly what we might or might not be prepared to accept before the negotiation even begins, in the first round.

Mr. Short: Can the Prime Minister say whether, in his discussions in Washington on trade, he raised the specific point of American attempts to cancel the order given to C. A. Parsons & Company Ltd., of Newcastle, and, if so, with what result?

The Prime Minister: All that question of the position of these types of orders—the heavy electrical industry—was discussed by me.

Mr. Harold Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Opposition are great enough to accept any sincere and constructive effort to maintain peace in this difficult world, and that we therefore hope that his efforts for peace will be successful?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the consultations with N.A.T.O. had not yet been completed. I had put down a Written Question today to ask about the Government's policy towards the entry of Spain into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I should like to hear what is the Government's policy on this, as some of us are tired of making the enemies of the last war the friends of the next.

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the question itself, I should like to have notice of it.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he expects the Summit talks to take place before or after the General Election?

The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, that depends upon two not absolutely known factors: first, when the General Election will be; and, secondly, when the Summit talks will be.

Mr. Robens: Can the Prime Minister he a little more forthcoming about unsuccessful bids by British firms for American tenders? Can he say a little more than he has been able to say today? If the United States are really to decide that these are strategic matters, would it not be better not to ask for bids from this country?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman understands the operation of these things in the American Constitution. What I think we have succeeded in doing is to make our position as clear as we can both to the administrative side of the American system and to the legislative side—and both are equally important.

Major Legge-Bourke: Arising out of the question asked by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), will my right hon. Friend hear in mind that there is growing in this country a body of opinion that if my right hon. Friend felt that it was in the interests of world peace to continue in office right up to the maximum period that this Parliament can exist, the country would be behind him in his efforts, because it knows that he is the only man who can succeed today?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for that thought, too, which matches the one from the other side of the House. I have no doubt that the country will be behind us whatever may be the choice.

Mr. H. Morrison: In connection with the talks about policy in Europe, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, arising out of the Washington conversations, there is no question of the American troops being removed from their functions on the European Continent?

The Prime Minister: That would be so tragic an event that I can hardly venture even to contemplate it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 7th April.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brockway.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Mr. A. Fenner Brockway(Eton and Slough) rose—

Mr. John Stonehouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to oppose the Adjournment of the House—

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).

Mr. Brockway: I apologise both to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).
I desire to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on two grounds: first, that the House has not had an opportunity to debate the White Paper on Nyasaland, containing the Governor's despatch; and, secondly, that we require a much clearer statement than we have had so far about the procedure that is proposed for the judicial Commission of Inquiry.
The Government have issued a White Paper that raises very grave and very important issues. We have not had an opportunity to discuss here the contents of that White Paper. The Government have promised a judicial inquiry on matters relating to it, but before that inquiry has taken place, there has been published all over the world, with very great prominence, the charge that Dr. Hastings Banda and the Nyasaland African Congress have been plotting murder and massacre.
It is quite true that the responsible Press in this country has been very sceptical of the charges made in the White Paper. The Times has described the evidence as not being conclusive; the Manchester Guardian has said that it is too much to believe, and the News Chronicle has called it flimsy—and that is not to mention the views of the Labour Press. I would strongly urge that we should have an opportunity of expressing our opinions on these matters before the House adjourns.
Yesterday the other place had that opportunity and it at least gave the country this advantage, that one now knows the view of Lord Malvern, namely, that in certain circumstances the armed forces of the Federation might be used against the Government of this country. In our view, therefore, we ought not to adjourn for the Easter Recess without having a similar opportunity to debate that matter.
We had very brief questioning yesterday on the Colonial Secretary's statement about the judicial inquiry, and before we adjourn and that inquiry takes place we have the right to certain information. We have the right to ask whether that inquiry will have full opportunity to meet Dr. Banda and the other prisoners in conditions of freedom. We have the right to ask whether the prisoners will be allowed freedom to collect evidence.
We have the right to ask whether they will be provided with an opportunity to obtain evidence that during the fortnight before the declaration of the state of emergency members of the Nyasaland African Congress handed over to the police the arms which they had taken from disarmed Europeans. In particular, we have the right to ask whether Inspector David M. Hogan of the Nyasaland Police, of Limbe, Blantyre, will be asked by the judicial inquiry whether a gun was handed to him by Dr. Banda in his surgery two days before the declaration of the emergency.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should direct his speech to the Motion that we adjourn till Tuesday, 7th April. I have gathered the drift of his argument, which is that we should not adjourn without an opportunity to discuss the situation in Nyasaland. That is perfectly clear, but he must not go into the situation in Nyasaland in detail, because that is another question altogether from the one before the House.

Mr. Brockway: I am striving to keep within the rules of order of the House, Mr. Speaker. I began by urging that we should not adjourn for two reasons: first, that we should have the opportunity for debate; and, secondly, that we should know exactly what will be the powers and procedure of the judicial inquiry, about which we in this House had had very little information so far.
I think that it would be in order to say that we ought not to adjourn before we

know whether the prisoners will be allowed to call witnesses and be represented by counsel or friends, as in the case of some tribunals, if they so desire. We are entitled to ask for answers to these questions before the House of Commons adjourns.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I should like to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) for the misunderstanding about whom you called at the beginning of this debate. It arose because of a general exodus of Members from the Chamber.
I want to follow my hon. Friend in opposing the Adjournment of the House for Easter until we have had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Nyasaland and in Southern Rhodesia, for which this House is partially responsible. In Nyasaland there is a state of emergency. Several hundred British-protected persons are imprisoned there. Not only that, but allegations have been made against many of these British-protected persons, and, as far as we are aware, there is no guarantee that those persons will be enabled to reply to the allegations which have been made against them in this House and also in the White Paper, the despatch from the Governor of Nyasaland.
We should have an undertaking, before we adjourn, that British-protected persons who are imprisoned in gaols in Southern Rhodesia, beyond the jurisdiction of the Governor of Nyasaland, will be entitled to appear either in person or be represented before the Commission of Inquiry which is going to Nyasaland.
I believe that it would be a mistake for the House to adjourn before it has had a clear undertaking from the Colonial Secretary that a Parliamentary commission of inquiry will go out to Nyasaland to investigate the situation there. It is generally recognised that the situation in Nyasaland, which gave rise to the events which led to the disturbances there, is largely a political one, and it is necessary that there should be an objective fact-finding mission, on behalf of Parliament, to ascertain the political facts leading up to the situation. I oppose the Adjournment of the House because we have not had satisfactory assurances from the Colonial Secretary on these points.
I also oppose the Adjournment of the House because in Southern Rhodesia—a country for which we still have some responsibility under the reserve powers of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, 1923—certain Bills have been introduced which, according to various church leaders in Southern Rhodesia, are Hitlerite in character. These Bills are discriminatory against the 2½ million Africans who live in Southern Rhodesia. Her Majesty's Government and the British Parliament have certain responsibilities towards the 2½ million people who live in Southern Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister, in the statement which we have just heard, referred to the right of the 2¼ million people who live in West Berlin to decide on their future. We must ensure that the 2½ million people in Southern Rhodesia have the opportunity to live in the way that they choose and that the minority of people who live there do not have, or over-exercise, powers to dictate to the majority of people.
I oppose the Adjournment of the House until 7th April because I believe that we have a right to discuss both these points—the state of emergency in Nyasaland and the discriminatory Bills introduced in Southern Rhodesia—at this most vital time.

3.48 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: Before supporting the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I should like to know whether the Colonial Secretary can tell us whether he is satisfied that the loyal Africans, the other Asian communities, and the British communities will be adequately protected against the difficulties with which they have been faced for some considerable time, both before and since the declaration of the emergency.
It would not be in order for me to say what I think about the situation in Nyasaland, but I think that to have continual debates, without referring at all to those who are doing a first-class job in the maintenance of law and order, and in looking after the present and future position of the loyal people in Nyasaland, does no good either to this House or to those who, in future, I hope, will have a happy prospect for a good livelihood in Nyasaland. I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether he

can assure us that their position is also being considered and not only the position of those people who, apparently, are the only ones in whom hon. Members opposite are interested.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I should like to support what my hon. Friends have said. There are today many people in all three Rhodesian territories for whom we are responsible. Many of them are in prison, and we have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the Colonial Secretary as to whether he has accepted the offer that some should be returned from Southern Rhodesian prisons to Northern Rhodesia. It is right that we should know whether he has accepted the offer of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia before Parliament rises. During recent weeks Parliament has been able to do much to help the people of Rhodesia, and but for its action the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia would not have repealed certain of his more repressive legislation.
We cannot shuffle off our responsibilities by saying that a Commission of Inquiry has been appointed. It is the duty of Parliament to see to these things, and it is essential that Parliament should remain in session even though it is inconvenient to many of us. If the events in Nyasaland had taken place in this country, and hundreds of people had been put in prison, would Parliament have risen? It would not. It would have remained in session until something was done to deal with the situation.
We must pay equal attention to what is going on in Rhodesia. Parliament has shown what can be done when it is in session and it should not adjourn now, but continue to do the work it has already done with such remarkable results in Rhodesia.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). We have removed the leaders of the Nyasaland Congress outside our jurisdiction. Before we adjourn it is important that we should have some assurance from the Colonial Secretary that those people who are outside our jurisdiction will be available to the judicial Commission of Inquiry The Commission will be a farce


if it is not given the power to enable the people who are one of the parties to this investigation, the Nyasaland Congress, both to appear, and have freedom to appear, before the judicial commission and prepare their case.
That is essential, and I hope that we can have an assurance on the point before we adjourn. To put a British-protected person outside our jurisdiction is something which has probably never before occurred in our history, and is a very serious thing to have done.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not want to detain the House, or be controversial about this very important subject.
I appreciate there is always a case against discussion. It is always said that a long and possibly controversial debate may aggravate things when a state of emergency exists. If, unhappily, a more serious crisis arises there is a danger in expressing an opinion while the crisis is on because, it is said, military forces are engaged in dangerous and difficult circumstances and the free expression of opinion is inhibiting that.
I am not trying to be controversial, but we are always faced with this dilemma. I can see the case for both sides. When the noble Lord the Earl of Perth was speaking yesterday—and I hope that I am in order in quoting, or at least paraphrasing, his words—he said that he did not think he ought to go into the matter of evidence after a judicial inquiry had been appointed.
I agree with that statement, subject to the qualification that it is a very grave question whether we ought to adjourn. If we did not adjourn it should not cause inconvenience, because we are here at the service of the community and we ought to be here and available if the needs of the community and of the situation demand our attendance here at any time on any day.
There was a debate in another place yesterday on this matter. That debate, to a high degree, was extremely controversial. It may well have raised the issue not only of Nyasaland, but of the relationship between the two Houses, because it seems very strange that a noble Lord can fly to this country over from

the Central African Federation to make a speech and fly back at a time when a Member of Parliament can be deported from that Federation.
I do not want at the moment to follow that up. Lord Malvern—I was not referring to that noble Lord a moment ago, but to another gracious and noble Lord, which, I believe, is the correct preface—has the clearest right, as a man of great experience, to express his view about the African, but in expressing his opinion he does not tell us anything about the African; he tells us about Lord Malvern.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is straying from the Motion before the House.

Mr. Hale: I do not challenge the Ruling laid down in 1641 that there should be no reference in this House to statements made in the other House. It was first laid down in another place, when Lord Peterborough sought to raise a remark made in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: That was not the point on which I interrupted the hon. Member. I was asking him to direct his argument more closely to the Motion before the House, namely, that we rise until 7th April.

Mr. Hale: I regret that I did not hear your words, Mr. Speaker. I regret that this disposition to stray is becoming almost inherent in me. I must endeavour to restrain it. I was tempted. It is interesting and sometimes diverting.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider this. I want him to consider it as being said in no hostile sense, and not as part of a discussion which sometimes arises on these Motions, and which is perhaps less grave than the subject with which we are concerned today.
If we are to restrain ourselves in not demanding a further debate; if we are to accept the situation that, in the terms of the Motion, there is little possibility of this extremely urgent and important matter being debated until after 7th, 8th and 9th April and the following Monday, when the financial proposals are to be debated; and if we bear in mind that this Parliament may well be coming to the end of its life, there may be a demand that we should devote our time almost exclusively


to trying to complete some of the legislative work in this Session rather hurriedly, and pass through an electoral Budget in the hope that there will be some recovery of support in the country for the party opposite. No doubt we would consider the question of co-operating in that, because we are anxious to see the end of the Government.
If we do that we have to remember that this judicial inquiry is going out with the hope that its labours will inspire such confidence as to create at least a period during which there will be no resort to violence and no displays of the kind that have been said to be taking place.
If it is to inspire that confidence, we are entitled to know, as are the Nyasaland people, what its powers and its duties will be. We do not know the answer, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, in response to the invitation I am making, fairly and sincerely, to tell the House what powers the Commission will have. Will it be able to interview all those people who are capable of giving evidence? Will it be able freely to take people from the detention camps to give their evidence, not in custody and not under restraint? Will it take evidence on oath? Will it be able to demand and receive all the documents that the Government say have been sent to them, and all the documents that may have been sent to the Government either of Nyasaland or the Central African Federation?
I submit that we ought not to adjourn until we have that information. I ask the Colonial Secretary to make a statement now which will be sufficient to show that a judicial inquiry—in the personnel of whom we have confidence, with whose appointment I do not quarrel—is invested with sufficient powers to be a really judicial inquiry. I hope that the Commission will be invested with the right to demand information and get it, with sufficient powers to create confidence in the people of Nyasaland that a just inquiry is to be made, and that the Commission will be able to pass a just opinion on the very grave allegations which are embodied, with so little support, in the White Paper.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: There seems to be no doubt that the House should not adjourn until it has had a

statement from the Colonial Secretary about the position in Nyasaland. I want to emphasise and underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that this may be the last occasion in the life of this Parliament on which the House will have any control over these affairs. If we return on 7th April we shall then have the Budget, and the Finance Bill may be hurriedly pushed through to meet the electoral convenience of the Government, who will then dissolve Parliament and have a General Election, in which case it will be the middle of June before any discussion can take place upon this matter.
The Government have produced a White Paper, and every responsible and serious-minded person must read it and take note of what it says. It is said, upon the authority of the Governor—a man of high reputation—that there was disorder, the threat of increased disorder, conspiracy and murder in Nyasaland and that a state of emergency had to be declared. At the same time, it is deplorable that this peace-loving people should have been forced, as a result of political pressure, into this position, all within the space of a few years.
I remember that during the war I came into contact with troops raised in Nyasaland. I thought that they were by far the best educated of our colonial forces. There was never a suggestion that they were prone to indiscipline. They were loyal soldiers of the Crown and their services were exemplary. Now, suddenly, we find them accused of sedition, on the verge of rebellion, and certainly on the verge of taking steps which required the Government to take the most urgent countermeasures.
The Government are responsible for law and order, and the first thing that they should have done is what they did, namely, to order a British battalion—the 1st Batalion K.O.R.R.—to proceed from Kenya to Nyasaland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is entering into too much detail about the situation in Nyasaland. The Question before the House is whether we should adjourn tomorrow.

Mr. Wigg: It is my submission that the steps that I am now urging and seeking to explain to the House should be


taken before it adjourns. The Government should admit the necessity for taking these steps. The first step that should have been taken, and was taken, was to put a British battalion under orders. But within six hours, that order was cancelled, and in view of the statement made in another place—which, if it had been made outside, would have rendered the speaker, namely, Lord Malvern, liable to a charge of sedition, because he said that he was prepared to use armed force—

Mr. Speaker: This is not relevant to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Wigg: I always strive to accept the Rulings of the Chair in the spirit as well as in the letter, Sir.
My submission is that it may be two or three months before we have an opportunity of calling the Executive to account on this point, namely, their responsibility for law and order in Nyasaland, on the basis of their own White Paper. The only guarantee of law and order in Nyasaland is the existence of loyal bodies of troops, and the only troops which can be depended upon to uphold the authority of the Government are a British battalion.
The only guarantee of the Government being able to carry out their responsibility to all the citizens of the Crown is the presence of British troops, and I should like to hear from the Colonial Secretary the circumstances in which the 1st Battalion K.O.R.R. was first placed under orders and then had those orders cancelled. In view of the publication of the White Paper, while there is still time will the Government send out a British battalion in a high state of efficiency, whose discipline is such that they can be relied upon to carry out the orders of the Executive?

4.13 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I think that I shall have your protection, Mr. Speaker, if I do not answer all the points that have been raised. I must congratulate hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the ingenuity with which they have contrived to have a further debate on affairs in Nyasaland, Both the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) spoke, the one as if this might be the last opportunity for this Parliament to debate affairs in

Nyasaland and the other as if it was the last opportunity until June. They both spoke about the forthcoming Budget and other preoccupations, as if they would prevent the House from turning its attention to Nyasaland or other Colonial Territories.
In carrying out their researches into former Parliamentary precedents they have obviously failed to read tomorrow's Order Paper, in which no less than 40 Questions are addressed to me, as Colonial Secretary. There will then be many opportunities of questioning me about Nyasaland and elsewhere, and when the House returns after the Easter Recess there will be plenty of other opportunities, whatever our preoccupations with the Budget, to cross-question me upon the situation in Nyasaland.
Two points were asked which appeared to be relevant to the Motion before the House, and I should like to deal with them briefly. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke about people being outside our jurisdiction. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member is in the Chamber at the moment, so I am outside his hearing. He might have waited to hear my answer. He raised a very serious point, but, as in the case of so many other points, it was based upon a complete ignorance of the situation.
The people in Bulawayo are not outside our jurisdiction. They are detained on the orders of the authorities in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. They are still within the jurisdiction of the Colonial Governments, and it is quite untrue to say that by being detained in a Federal prison in Bulawayo they are outside the jurisdiction of this House or the authorities in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. The Governors of the two Territories are responsible for law and order in their Territories, and no one can take that responsibility from them.

Mr. James Johnson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it seemed tactless to send these men south of the Zambesi, to an almost self-governing State, instead of sending them next door, into a Protectorate, where we have a Governor appointed by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member is going beyond the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be out of order for me to deal with that point, and the hon. Member clearly indicates that he realises that I would be out of order to discuss it.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West raised a point about the form in which the Commission of Inquiry would be set up. I will take the earliest possible opportunity to inform the country of the method by which the inquiry will be set up. I spoke about it yesterday at some length, but as soon as our work is completed—and hon. Members will realise that it is being carried out with very considerable speed, to meet the feeling in the House and the country—I will take the earliest opportunity of informing the public and the House of what is being done.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Secretary of State has failed to convince me that the House should adjourn without a much fuller debate than we have so far had on the situation in Nyasaland. I want to put before him three points, which should be dealt with much more fully before the House adjourns. The first point concerns incidents at Blantyre on 22nd and 23rd February—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I deal with that point straight away? As I told the House, there was a conflict of testimony about that. I told the House that I was in touch with the Governor, so that the two stories could be presented to Parliament. Those inquiries will continue and, I hope, be completed during the Easter Recess. May I venture to say that it is rather an abuse of the privileges of the House to suggest—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that I, having given a promise—

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the Secretary of State is saying.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it not a gross reflection on the Chair to speak, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, about an hon. Member grossly abusing the privileges of the House? Is that not entirely a matter for the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not feel like that, but perhaps it is.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The last thing I would do is to reflect upon you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or any other occupant of the Chair.
I gave an assurance that the matter was being investigated by the Governor. The rising of Parliament will in no sense hold up the investigation. Indeed, the Governor will be able to concentrate all the more on the investigation if he does not have to provide material for answers to other Questions, and a reply will be given to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Thomson: The Secretary of State is excessively quick to jump in. I was about to say to him that, on the first point I was raising with him, he had an opportunity to assure me that the House might safely adjourn. I have a Question down to the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow morning on this important matter and I was hoping to have a reply from him this afternoon to assure us that in this respect the House could safely adjourn. Instead, however, the Secretary of State has produced strong arguments for the House not to adjourn.
This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and others of my hon. Friends on 10th March, which is 15 days ago. At that time, the Secretary of State said, as he has just mentioned, that he would look into the matter and would immediately inform the House when he was able to give the result of his inquiries into the conflicting evidence. That was 15 days ago and one would have expected that by this time, on a matter of this gravity, in which there is the most conflicting evidence, the Secretary of State would have been able to inform the House of the result of his inquiries.
This matter involves a conflict of evidence between the Government's authorities in Nyasaland and the Church of Scotland there. We who represent Scottish constituencies put at least as much credibility on what the Church of Scotland tells us as on what is told to us from the benches opposite. It is unfortunate that the Church of Scotland should continue under this slur, on the evidence it has produced, for the period during which the House is to adjourn. The Secretary of State ought to have been able to clear up this point before the House adjourns.
It is quite wrong for the House to adjourn without adequate debate, as another place has had, on the White Paper on Nyasaland, which was produced the other day, and, in particular, without much fuller information concerning the powers of the Commission of Inquiry. Here again, the Government must understand that they are not simply facing criticism of a Conservative Government by Labour Members, doing their duty as Her Majesty's Opposition. The Government's evidence in the White Paper is in direct conflict with the information that hon. Members, on both sides, are receiving from Scottish missionaries in Nyasaland. So long as this conflict of evidence continues, there will be, first, the most unfortunate situation in Nyasaland itself, and, secondly, a continuing suspicion of the evidence which has been produced to us, a suspicion that should be cleared up.
If this matter is to be cleared up, it is essential that the Commission should have the opportunity to make a thorough investigation. It must, for example, be able to cross-examine the African Nationalist leaders and to get their answers to the grave allegations that are made against them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Commission will probably do that, but that, surely, is going beyond the Motion.

Mr. Thomson: My point is that in questioning him yesterday afternoon, we had very inadequate answers on this matter from the Secretary of State. We are arguing that the House should not adjourn until the Secretary of State has told us whether the Commission will, for instance, be able to examine the police spies and paid informers who have provided this information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether or not the answers yesterday were inadequate, we cannot expect to get the answers now, on this Motion.

Mr. William Hamilton: We can get them tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is very likely.

Mr. Thomson: I was arguing that the House should not adjourn until the Government have given us this information and have answered the serious reflections which have been made on the White

Paper and on the powers of the Commission by many organs of the Press.
I would point out to the Secretary of State the comments of the Scotsman, the national newspaper of Scotland and one which is of independent Conservative persuasion in its politics. The Scotsman said of the White Paper that
Of the unreliability of these sources and the accuracy of the reports, it is impossible to judge.… It is difficult to credit that any organisation intending such an atrocity should be so ill-equipped or ill-organised for its accomplishment.
We really must have a more adequate answer from the Government before the House can adjourn, or allow the present situation to continue.
There is the further point that the Government should not allow the House to adjourn without stating definitely that they are sending a Parliamentary Commission to Nyasaland in addition to the Commission of Inquiry. If the Secretary of State looks, for example, at the Economist, he will find there the comment that he is sending the wrong Commission to Nyasaland. If he reads the Scotsman, which I have already quoted, again he will find the viewpoint that a Parliamentary Commission is required.
We have in Nyasaland a steadily deteriorating position in the good will and trust that should exist between Nyasaland and this House of Commons. That will get worse during the period of our Easter Recess unless before we go into recess the Government are prepared to say that a Parliamentary Commission will go out and attempt to repair the damage which has been done. For these reasons, the House should not adjourn without much more adequate assurances from the Government than we have had this afternoon.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? During his inadequate statement, the Colonial Secretary referred to the fact that he would be making to the public and also to this House a further statement concerning the Commission of Inquiry. My point of order is to ask what opportunity there will be for the Colonial Secretary to make to this House his further statement, which is awaited with such anxiety.

Mr. Speaker: As far as I can make out, I presume that if the Motion is carried, the Secretary of State will make his statement when we return.

Mr. Stonehouse: Further to that point of order, may I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we could ask for a special statement tomorrow in view of the great interest which is felt concerning the powers of the Commission of Inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think so. The position is that if this afternoon's Motion is carried, the House will go on to the Adjournment after Questions tomorrow. A number of hon. Members wish then to raise a number of constituency points in which they are keenly interested. As is customary, I have done my best to allot the time fairly between them. There is no right of asking for a statement tomorrow.
The Question will be the Motion for the Adjournment. Hon. Members would be acting rather beyond the usual comity of the House if they were to introduce another topic and thereby deny hon. Members an opportunity to raise the points about which they are anxious. It is, of course, a question of who catches my eye on these occasions, but I shall endeavour to follow the proper course.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I hope that the House will agree not to adjourn without discussing some of the issues which have been raised. The Colonial Secretary has not attempted to reply to the arguments from this side of the House. Surely it is insulting the House to suggest that, merely because Members have an opportunity to put Questions tomorrow, that is a substitute for a debate on a White Paper. The Colonial Secretary, however, is suggesting that that is an adequate reason for agreeing to the Government's Motion.
It seems to me fantastic that another place can discuss for a whole day, and until midnight, the White Paper submitted to this House, and discuss it in very close detail, while we have no opportunity whatsoever of dealing with the matter. We should have some other assurances—

ROYAL ASSENT

4.30 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1959.
2. Transport (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1959.
3. International Bank and Monetary Fund Act, 1959.
4. Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1959.
5. Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959.
6. Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1959.
7. Intestate Husband's Estate (Scotland) Act, 1959.
8. County Courts Act, 1959.
9. Overseas Resources Development Act, 1959.
10. Angle Ore and Transport Company Act, 1959.

And to the following Measures, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Truro Cathedral Measure, 1959.
Vacancies in Sees Measure, 1959.
Guildford Cathedral Measure, 1959.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Question again proposed.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. R. Edwards: I was arguing that the House should not adjourn because of the very grave situation which confronts us and many millions of people in Africa. We have not dealt with the simple issue that the trouble in Central Africa affects not merely 7 million Africans and 250,000 Europeans but 150 million people on the Continent of Africa.
The House has a very grave responsibility and ought not to adjourn while many issues arising out of the situation in Nyasaland and Central Africa have not been debated and resolved. For example, we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the White Paper, although it has been discussed in very great detail in another place. A Minister


flew back from Nyasaland and took part in the debate there yesterday, and he has now flown back to Africa. Yet this House has not been given the elementary right to discuss an important White Paper which may take a similar place in history to the Zinoviev "Red Letter".
What powers has the Commission of Inquiry to enable those who attended the Accra Conference to give their interpretation of the resolution, passed at the Accra Conference, which is quoted in the White Paper? I was privileged to be present at that great all-African conference, at which were representatives of nine independent African States, two of which are members of the Commonwealth. The Government are not merely charging African leaders in Nyasaland with sedition and acts of terror; they are making accusations against 300 delegates to the Conference.
The House has not yet had an opportunity to question the Minister about the reference in the White Paper to the resolution, which merely quoted the American Constitution, referring to the right of people who are the victims of legalised tyranny and have no opportunity of peacefully and democratically defending their rights to use violence to overthrow the tyranny. That is a fundamental right which every Briton, I hope, claims the right to retain. It is also something that we broadcast throughout Europe during the war, urging the people to revolt against Nazi tyranny. Yet the resolution passed at the Accra Conference is submitted to the British people as a reason—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member seems now to be discussing the whole merits of the African question rather than directing his mind to the question whether or not we should adjourn until Tuesday, 7th April. This is not the occasion to go into such matters. It is an occasion to argue whether or not we should adjourn. The hon. Member is going into too much detail.

Mr. Edwards: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to ask what facilities the Commission of Inquiry has to question delegates who attended the Accra Conference, which is widely quoted in the White Paper. Indeed, the resolution passed by the Conference is given as one of the basic justifications for the arrest of African leaders in that it

was the cause of riots which led to the killing of 50 Africans and the whole state of emergency in Nyasaland. Surely we are entitled to know how the evidence from the Accra Conference will be gone into. What powers has the inquiry? We do not know whether it is a judicial inquiry or not. It is a Commission of Inquiry which is like a German sausage; it is neither bread, fish nor meat. In another place, it is referred to as a judicial inquiry. We are told that it has no power to bring witnesses to give evidence. These seem to be basic points which the House should debate.
There are many hundreds of Africans for whom we are responsible whose freedom has been denied them and they are vegetating in prisons. Have they no right to some protection? Are they to continue to be imprisoned while the House is in recess? These are elementary points of human justice and human freedom which should be debated in the House. For these reasons, and for many others, which I should like to mention but I should be out of order, I support the opposition of my hon. Friends to the proposal that the House should adjourn tomorrow for the Easter Recess.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The questions that have been raised by my hon. Friends, and which are hanging over this debate, show the seriousness with which it is regarded by, I think, the country at large. I wish that we had had clearer answers from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The answers that we had yesterday to some of the questions which were posed, such as whether, for example, the Commission of Inquiry would have the right of seeing those who are detained in Southern Rhodesia, were not as straightforward as they could have been in the sense that they were circumlocutory.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Commission would not ignore any opportunity of getting at the truth. That is not quite the direct answer we want to the question whether the Commission of Inquiry, which is concerned with these men's future, will have the opportunity of seeing them. If he had said, "Yes", that would have been the end of it; there would have been no argument about it. We believe that these questions are of


vital importance and I hope that the Government are taking note of the continued anxiety of the House about them.
There is a very important Bill which we wish to discuss today—the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill—and a number of other very important considerations which we should like to get on to, and we understand that there is other business. But I would ask the Colonial Secretary to consider this, if he will. He has already made one speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two."] He made one plus a very long intervention, and I imagine that he cannot make a second.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, he can.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that he can, by permission, on a Motion for the Adjournment. I am not asking him to do that now, because I am not sure what answers we should get.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very seriously the questions posed here this afternoon about the right of access to the detainees and the nature of the inquiry and to make a statement as soon as possible after tomorrow, or make it tomorrow if he can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] I am getting a great deal of advice from my hon. Friends and I am deeply indebted to them. If I got the right information I would be prepared to wait 24 hours for it.
I hope that the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House have taken note of the very real anxieties which are felt about the position that still continues in Nyasaland, and that the Leader of the House can give us an assurance that a further statement will be made as soon as possible, preferably tomorrow, about the work of the Commission, giving us as much information as possible.
I realise that things are moving very quickly and I certainly would not want to ask my hon. Friends to hold up the work of the House any longer. We should then be able to get on and discuss the other Bill, which is, of course, of very great importance.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have no desire to delay the House and I apologise for having had to

miss the opening minutes of this debate. If the Colonial Secretary will be good enough to give us further information on the lines demanded, I wonder if he would cover three points which I should like to put briefly to him.
First, I should like to ask what is the position under the Emergency Regulations and what is the number of people held under those Regulations without charge or trial? Secondly, considerable anxiety has been expressed about the conditions under which they are held, and hon. Members have received information, which naturally we cannot check, but which seems to point to the fact that they are held in worse conditions than those suffered by convicted criminals.
Lastly, I should like to know about what has been said in the terms of reference to the Commission. May we have as plain an answer as possible whether it is to be entitled to look at the underlying causes of the trouble—a phrase, I think, used in previous Commissions of this sort—and a rather more firm assurance that, if it so desires, it will be able to examine witnesses who are held outside the territory of Nyasaland?

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that my absence from the Chamber was commented upon. I wish to apologise very sincerely both to you and to the right hon. Gentleman. I was sent for to attend a Division in a Standing Committee upstairs. That is the only reason I was not here.

4.56 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I do not want to delay the proceedings on the next subject that is to come before us, but I should like to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, if in fact he is to make a statement tomorrow. It went out from Parliament yesterday that all Africans, until they are very much advanced, are all liars. This observation was made by a Parliamentarian of some very considerable distinction and very close association with the party opposite.
If we were to adjourn now, leaving the impression among African policemen, African soldiers, African civil servants—[An HON. MEMBER: "African judges."] They are very much advanced. I am talking about the people who do the ordinary work—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to something said in another place and not by a Minister. That is not proper.

Sir L. Plummer: My difficulty is that the Government have not denied it; and I am saying that it is a matter of urgency.

Mr. Speaker: They have not been asked to deny it yet. It was a statement by a noble Lord who is not a Minister and it should not be referred to.

Sir L. Plummer: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in asking the Colonial Secretary, if he is going to make a statement, to express his confidence in the truthfulness of the Africans who work with the British Government abroad?

4.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): In response to the request of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I think that it is quite reasonable to say that the debate on adjourning until 7th April has elicited a certain number of questions and has exhibited a certain degree of anxiety.
I think that it is natural for the House of Commons to be interested in certain reactions to a statement made in another place, especially when the Members of another place remain themselves for a very long period in situ and sit very late into the night, speaking all the time. Therefore, to find a reaction here, quite apart from the anxiety about the situation which is obviously felt by us all, is not unnatural. It may seem unreasonable that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary was not able to give an exact answer to all the points raised and in particular to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), repeated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, which are, no doubt, in everyone's mind, and the points raised, for example, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which are of a slightly different character, and to one or two of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman

the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards). It is not surprising that there should be a request for the information.
I will say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he will either make a statement or issue the information as soon as he possibly can. We will accept the statement of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that if it is not ready tomorrow we cannot do it. It entails a great deal of work which is going on at the moment. My right hon. Friend asked me earlier if he could be allowed to leave the Chamber to go on with the work now, but he could not leave because of this subject in which he is interested. If it can be given tomorrow it will be, but I can give no undertaking. It will, however, be given as soon as possible.
I think that this debate on the Adjournment has had some value because we will register the points made, led off by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). I have listened to every word and we have taken note of them. If there is any way in which we can be of service, either in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East tomorrow or at the earliest possible date, we will do so. I hope that this will satisfy the House that our time has not been wasted.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Colonial Secretary whether, as the House does not rise until five o'clock tomorrow, if information is not available at eleven o'clock it will be given later in the day, because I know that the House itself would be the first to like to hear it.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the answer that has been given, I do not now press the opposition which has been expressed.

Mr. Wigg: If it is decided by the Government to make a statement later in the day it would be of advantage to hon. Members if as much notice as possible could be given of the time when it will be made.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 7th April.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the development and welfare of colonies and other territories, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in sums payable out of such moneys under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) modifying or removing the limit on the duration of any scheme made under section one of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940,
(ii) increasing the limit on the aggregate amount of payments for the purposes of schemes so made from two hundred and twenty million pounds to three hundred and fifteen million pounds,
(iii) removing the annual limit on the amount of payments for the purposes of schemes so made, or
(iv) authorising the making of schemes with respect to bodies established for the joint benefit of a territory for which schemes may be made under section one of the said Act of 1940 and a territory which has ceased to be one for which such schemes may be made:
(b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making loans under the said Act of the present Session up to one hundred million pounds in all, and the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be so issued or for the replacement of sums so issued;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by way of interest on, or in repayment of, loans made by virtue of the said Act of the present Session, and the issue of those sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of applying so much thereof as represents principal in redemption or repayment of debt and so much thereof as represents interest towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the national debt as represents interest.

Resolution agreed to.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES FOR COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE.)

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "sixty-four" and to insert "sixty-two".
On the face of it, the Amendment would have the effect of bringing the operation of the new Bill to an end two years earlier than the Government propose. In view of the fact that we on this side of the Committee are constantly pressing the Government to do more, I suppose that at first sight it might be asked why we want to bring the operation of the Bill to an end sooner but, knowing the acuity of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, I do not suppose that he has concluded that that is our intention. It is, of course, the very reverse.
We have been helped in framing an Amendment to reduce the period of operation of the Bill from up to 1964 to up to 1962 by the fact that in the Bill the Government propose to omit the provision which existed in previous Acts that there should be an annual limitation on the sums to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of colonial development and welfare schemes. As long as there was a limitation on the annual amount that could be paid out, combined with a period of years, clearly, on previous Bills, it would not have been a good thing for the Opposition to move an Amendment of this sort. But, now that the Government have removed the annual limitation on the amounts paid out by Parliament, it is obviously open to the Opposition to suggest that the period within which the Bill should operate should be shorter. That is what we are doing.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Government to spend more money in each of the years up to 1962—not to cut off the life of the Bill. It is to ask the Government to put more into colonial development and welfare


by reducing this period of time. We do this for a number of reasons. First of all, the need of the Colonial Territories is very great. It is not getting less, it is getting greater for this type of aid.
Secondly, the reason we are asking the Government to spend more is frankly that in the past it has not been the limitation of money which has been the limiting factor but the limitations in the supply of technicians and of equipment that could be sent from this country to raise the standards of these underdeveloped territories. Therefore, we believe that now that these limitations have been removed, there is an even better case for saying to the Government that, if there is no limitation except that of money, they should dig a little deeper into the pockets of the Treasury and spend a little more in the next two or three years.
The third reason is one of self-interest. It is that as long as there is in this country unused resources we can say that by making long-term loans or grants—and both are provided for in the Bill—of this description we are stimulating our own export industries, and particularly our own capital goods industries. It is in the capital goods industries that the falling-off has been experienced in the last few months.
I read in the newspapers this morning that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, a new body recently set up, has published a second report which states that the Institute
sees little prospect of a recovery in exports".
As to the hope that the Government may have had that the release of more consumer credit might stimulate a revival in our industries, the Institute thinks it possible that the increase in consumer spending may be slowed down or even reversed within a very short time.
I said that the basic shortage was in the heavy industries, and the Institute says that the fall in employment has been mainly in metals and engineering and in textiles and clothing. Metals and clothing are the important industries where this sort of help would be most valuable. If I may paraphrase further the Institute's report, it does not fear an expensive capital boom and, generally speaking, it says that in view of the continued large reserve of unemployed men and women

it is pessimistic about the United Kingdom position.
Therefore, on the grounds of self-interest, there is a case for stimulating our export industries by increasing the amount which the Exchequer would put every year in colonial development and welfare. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is at the moment reviewing its policy on the granting of long-term credits to a number of countries, one or two of which I know fairly well. They will not be very good risks but the Department will have to take a gamble on them, and the Department ought to be more prepared than it sometimes is to take a gamble on these Colonies.
Some of them are very good risks indeed. If there is any intention on the Government's part to be realistic in the activities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in their loans to foreign countries, there is all the more reason why the Government themselves in the colonial field, where they have such direct control, should stimulate investment. I ask the Government, therefore, on this ground to go further than they have done.
No doubt they will argue, and I immediately acknowledge it, that what they are doing in the Bill is greater in money terms than what was done in the previous Measure. I imagine that it is also greater in real terms. If we are to take into account the falling away in the number of people affected owing to the fact that when a country becomes independent it is cut off from benefit under the Bill—a subject on which we shall say something later—there is an increase in real terms. But I plead with the Government that that increase should be even greater. In view of the state of the economy at the moment, which we are told is in a most remarkable condition—and we are looking forward to very substantial budgetary benefits in the next week or two—there is a case for the Government going further. That is why we on this side of the Committee move the Amendment.
A final point is that one of the basic reasons why the Colonial Territories need this additional help is the decline in the purchase of their own raw materials and primary products. Copper has taken a great beating, if I may put it that way, over the last couple of years. It has fallen away from its substantial crest


and gone down into a trough. It has come up a little again, but its decline has undoubtedly been a substantial blow to those territories which are responsible for producing it.
Zinc has fallen in price over the last 18 months from £100 to £60 per ton and has only recently recovered to about £75. Sugar has fallen from £50 per ton at the beginning of 1957 to £29 per ton at the end of 1958. The Economist indicator of commodity prices, which takes the general level of raw material prices throughout the world as fixed at 100 in 1952, was—taking the whole level of prices—down to 90 by the middle of 1956. At the end of 1956 it had recovered to about 100. In June, 1957, it was 90. In December, 1957, it was down to 85 and at the end of 1958 it was hovering around 84 or 85. That is a decline of about 15 points in that indicator since 1952.

Sir James Duncan: It has gone up a little since then.

Mr. Callaghan: That may be so; I have the figures only to the end of 1958. Even so, I do not think the hon. Gentleman would deny that it is a substantial decline in terms of the purchasing power of the territories. There is the further fact that in practically every territory about which we are speaking there has been since 1952 a substantial increase in the cost of living and a decline in the value of money. In this country the decline in the value of money since 1952 has been between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. I am not making a party point but stating a fact. If it is the same throughout the other territories, the indicator, which has gone down from 100 to 85 plus, must be much more serious in their terms.
We were told that we could afford to wait a little while after the American recovery had begun. There was a facile assumption, which I confess I shared, that once the American recovery started this would of itself put up the demand for raw materials and the prices of primary products. In fact that has not happened, at least not by nearly as much as everybody had hoped. The American recovery has been in progress for almost a year now without anything like the effect on those prices which we had hoped. I suppose the reason is that we all neglected to consider the tremendous

weight of Europe in the purchase of these materials.
The gross national product of Europe is about two-thirds that of the United States. So, if there is a recovery in the United States combined with a continuing recession in Europe, such as we have had, the effect on raw material prices and primary product prices is clearly less than it would be if we had a European recovery coinciding with an American recovery. In that case we might have been back to our position before the American recession. We have not got that, so this is another reason why there is a special obligation upon the Committee to consider whether we should not do a little more for the territories.
On this side of the Committee we are ready to accept the responsibility involved in asking the Government to spend more. We realise that there would not be so much for taxation relief. I do not know that it would make so much difference, but clearly there would be some difference. However, we are willing to take that responsibility, and we hope the Government will share in it by being willing to play their part. We do so because we believe that we cannot have a prosperous United Kingdom if the Colonies and the rest of the Commonwealth are sunk in a comparative slough of recession because of the fall in their raw material prices.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to consider the countries about which we are speaking—Kenya, Somaliland, Tanganyika, the West Indies and British Guiana. All are territories where the economy is not diversified. All of them are ill-equipped to stand the substantial fall that has taken place in their real purchasing power. It is for that reason we ask the Government to think again about the date they put in the Bill, and to agree with our Amendment that it should become 1962 instead of 1964.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I support the Amendment chiefly because, speaking from my own experience, Colonial Territories are frequently starved of urgently needed social services as well as of economic development. Every year a large number of schemes of vital importance are put forward, but the money is just not there in the territory concerned. Yet, unless money is spent


on economic development, it is difficult for a territory to build its productivity so that it may be more prosperous in the days ahead.
5.15 p.m.
Moreover, there is a growing need for an extension of education services, of health services and of resettlement in the territories, and there are other social needs there which cannot be satisfied at present. Therefore, if more money can be made available by grants or by loans or by contributions to desperately needed services, it would help to increase prosperity and lay the foundation of the political reforms about which we are all so anxious. I support the suggestion that the year in the Bill might be altered so that the money available may be concentrated in a shorter period, and so that the urgent and pressing needs of the territories may be partially met by the additional contribution which will be given under the Bill.
One thing is often forgotten when we are discussing money from the colonial development and welfare funds, and that is the considerable contribution made towards these schemes by the territories themselves. The territorial Governments have been extraordinarily generous. For every £1 forthcoming from the British Exchequer, sometimes as much as £4 has been forthcoming from the territory. Many of these schemes the territories have not been able to implement until they get the assistance of the home Government, when they are prepared to make the additional sacrifice in terms of taxation in order to get a larger revenue to pay for these desperately needed schemes. In the circumstances, therefore, I support the Amendment.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: All of us here recognise how urgent are the needs in the Colonial Territories. We are supporting this Amendment because it is a way of showing our concern for the expansion of the valuable services that have already been made available from the colonial development and welfare funds.
Many of us have had the opportunity to see the work already done and we know of the work that needs to be done urgently in individual territories. Speaking with the advantage, shared by many of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, of a visit to the West Indies, I

have certain developments very much in mind. In looking at the White Paper provided in connection with the introduction of this Bill, I noticed the detailed statistics showing how the funds have been spent in the different territories. In the West Indies, for example, I saw how little has been spent on technical and vocational education, which is so important. Some of us commented on that in our report to the House of Commons after visiting the islands. It was a matter of great concern to us that so little was being done there to help people to gain the amount of skill needed to help them build local industries and local activities. How rarely we found in the islands any people with qualifications, even of the most modest kind, in engineering and subjects of that sort. Many projects have been discussed or recommended from time to time by visiting commissions and in the reports of economic experts, but none of them has made headway because of the desperate lack of training facilities.
In one relatively isolated island, Dominica, there is urgent need for training in fishery and for improvement in facilities, equipment and the standard of training. This matter has been under discussion for many years and very little has been done. This is the kind of practical action that we want to see encouraged by extra money voted under a Bill of this nature. I have given an example, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have other examples in mind.
In almost all of the West Indian islands we were struck by the same lack of facilities, even in the larger islands like Trinidad. Though some small beginning has been made, it is still pitifully small. Some of the more alert and vigorous of the West Indian people have come to this country in search of the training that they cannot get on their islands. This is an added reason why we should look upon the Bill as one of the priorities for our consideration.
Another priority is the need for development in communications. Road facilities are vital in some of the West Indian islands. Although quite a lot has been done—in an island like Dominica there are more prospects for development such as in the timber industry than there are in some of the other islands—the whole thing is held up by lack of communications. An increase in the grant


could make a difference in the development of agriculture and afforestation. Such possibilities must be borne in mind.
It is clear that these things cannot be provided unless we secure a greater concentration of capital than we have been able to manage up to now. We have a very real duty to make a bigger contribution than we are making at present.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I feel somewhat apologetic about making a speech on the Amendment at this stage. Unfortunately, another engagement will take me out of the Chamber from about six to seven p.m. I hope the Committee will forgive me for intervening at the moment lest the Amendment be disposed of before I come back. I am especially anxious to refer to the need for far more colonial development and assistance to certain Colonies which I visited not long ago.
Before I do that, I would sketch in the background against which these Colonies have to deal with their tremendous problems and difficulties. The Secretary of State for the Colonies referred on the Second Reading of the Bill to the Government's White Paper, "The United Kingdom's rôle in Commonwealth Development", published in 1957. That White Paper showed that since 1952 the annual net outflow of private capital from the United Kingdom to the sterling area in the Commonwealth was £100 million and to Canada £30 million. It further showed that the public capital outflow of all kinds, including Colonial Development Corporation grants, C.D. and W. grants and public loans raised on the market by Colonial Governments, came to a total of rather less than £70 million.
These figures place in the right proportion the comparison which some of us wish to make between private investment and public investment in the Colonies, but they by no means tell the whole truth. If we are properly to understand the magnitude of the problem in relation to the effort which this country is making, we must take into account the size of the sterling balances. Professor Paish, in Lloyds' Bank Review of September, 1956, pointed out that when this is taken into account, and when we realise the extent to which the trading profits of Colonial Territories are held as sterling balances, and offset them against those figures of

net transfer of capital from the United Kingdom, the picture becomes very different.
Professor Paish is certainly not a member of the Labour Party. His criticism is completely detached and professional. The professor's examination showed that the net transfer from the United Kingdom to the sterling area in 1949–55 amounted to no more than £154 million, or £26 million a year, so that the net transfer from this country to the whole of the sterling area in those years was really no more than £26 million per year. If we separate the Colonies from that total for the sterling area the figure is even lower. That is the measure of the actual net aid by this country to the Colonial Territories. The professor concluded that these Colonies, and particularly West Africa and Malaya,
provided collectively on short-term the bulk of the capital they borrowed on long-term.
Those are the real economic facts of the situation. For years on end the real transfer of wealth from this country to the Colonial Territories has been very small in proportion to the help that they have rendered to us by making their dollar balances available to us fom the sale of rubber, cocoa and other primary products to the United States and Canada. Set off against the transfers that we have made from this country, they show that the total balance in our favour as donors to colonial welfare is very small indeed.
I believe that that has long been the position. It was especially due, in the years 1949–55, to the terms of trade, whereby the prices of the raw materials which the Colonies produced, like rubber and coffee, tended to rise. The Colonies were making large profits on their transactions and these were put on one side into various funds for future development and were held as balances. While the terms of trade were very much in favour of the Colonies, transfers from this country to the Colonies were very small. The Colonial countries were helping us. While the terms of trade were very advantageous to them and they were having the advantage of a very favourable situation, they helped us with our balance of payments difficulties.
5.30 p.m.
During the last few years the terms of trade have turned the other way. Over the last two or three years, prices of


primary products have been falling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) reminded us, and everybody knows it to be true. During the time when the terms of trade were unfavourable to us and favourable to the Colonies, they helped us. Now the time has come when the terms of trade are favourable to us but unfavourable to the Colonies, and so the case is now overwhelmingly great, not for a modest increase in the annual amount and patting ourselves on the back because we are going to give them £2 million or £3 million more than we were doing in the previous period, but for a really substantial improvement. We should make an effort at this moment to help the Colonies commensurate with the immense help which they undoubtedly gave us during the time when the terms of trade were against us.
What, in fact, has been done? During this period when the terms of trade have been in our favour and to the disadvantage of the Colonial Territories, so far from saying to ourselves that we ought to help them in these circumstances, when gold and dollars are flowing into our Treasury, and when they are not able to earn as many dollars by the sale of their goods as they used to do, what did we do? We said that the credit squeeze must apply to them as it applied to us. We said that Kenya, Uganda and other Colonies were part of the sterling area monetary system, the monetary system of London, and that whatever was done in London must apply throughout the sterling area and therefore apply to them too.
We remember the ridiculous situation, when Kenya was suffering greatly by this decline in overseas earnings, that Kenya had to float a loan on the London market in 1957 at 6½ per cent. and at a price of 97. That is nearly 7 per cent., which Kenya had to pay for a loan at that difficult time. The situation was reversed from the time when Kenya was helping us very considerably through the accumulation of sterling balances, which greatly favoured us in our balance of payments difficulties.
It is no use calculating the size of our aid in a mere monetary comparison. I know that the Bill proposes some increase and that whereas in the previous quinquennium some £80 million was allowed we are now asked to allow £95 million

in the next quinquennium, which is an increase of £3 million per annum on the average. Allowing for the depreciation of the purchasing power of money since the last quinquennium, which has been quite considerable, and for the completely different situation which now exists in respect of the terms of trade, this is grossly inadequate. I really mean this. I do not mean that it should be a million or two more. I think it falls completely short of what the circumstances of the time demand. It is a definite failure to help the Colonies in their time of adversity, while they helped us in our own time of adversity.
Let me take Kenya as an example. Until 1955, due to the rising value of primary products, Kenya's national income was mounting, but in 1956 it was no more than it was in 1955. I speak particularly of Kenya, because I visited it last year, and I want to speak about it on that account. Kenya was not so very adversely affected as some Colonies, because the goods which it produces, like coffee, tea and sisal, did not suffer such a severe fall as the products of other Colonies, like Malaya, where the price of tin went down very badly.
Still, faced with that situation, Kenya, with her annual geographical income for 1956 no more than it was in 1955, decided that it must cut its development programme. It decided to spend no more than £20 million during the years 1957 to 1960, though, had the means been available,
it would have been possible"—
I am now quoting from an official document published by the Kenya Government—
to employ as much as £50 million on highly desirable projects.
It could have employed £50 million without the waste of a single penny on highly desirable, top priority projects, but had to cut the bill by no less than £13 million for those few years—more than the increased annual amount which this Bill provides for the whole of the Colonies—because of the economic situation and because the terms of trade had turned to its disadvantage. Just at a time when investment expenditure should be expanded, when current trade and employment were slack, Kenya had to reduce—not even mark time—its development programme.
For the supply of water in agricultural development, for example, from 1954 to 1957, Kenya spent £14 million, but had to cut it for the next three years to £9 million. This in respect of water for agriculture, and every hon. Member who knows Kenya, of whom there are a large number here, realises full well the desperate need for bringing more land under cultivation in Kenya. It is necessary in order to meet an expanding population, to meet the African desire for stability and their relationship to the land, yet they had to cut the expenditure from 1954 to 1957 from £14 million to £9 million.
Similar figures apply to the forestry programme, in which I have a special interest, because I had something to do with its formulation. That was cut from £262,000 to £126,000. What a deplorable thing, when that magnificent forestry development is going on and when investment in forestry yields its return after so many years, that this had to be cut, impeded and held up.
On local government, health and housing, Kenya spent in three years £5,742,000, and this was cut to £3,750,000. Can one wonder that there is unrest in Kenya, when we have a rapidly increasing population, which knows that the opportunity of getting on to new land is to be restricted, that the opportunity of getting new houses and new schools is to be cut below what their own Government would like to do and below what their own Government had been achieving previously?
There is a similar situation in Uganda, where a drop in the price of cotton has been very serious indeed, and caused a larger fall in the size of the national income than is the case in Kenya. Uganda is more fortunate than Kenya in having a more stable political system and a more advanced population. This is because there is a greater degree of self-government among Africans than is permitted in Kenya, and also because Uganda has resolutely adopted a policy of mixed State and private enterprise and has a better founded economy than Kenya.
The proper remedy for all this is the stabilisation of prices, but we cannot refer to that because it would be completely out of order on this Bill. Even if we were able to achieve international stabilisation

of prices quickly, the case would remain for a far bigger allocation of colonial and development welfare grants in the next few years which we are discussing under the terms of this Bill. It is in the next few years that the increase will be so desperately needed in order that Kenya, Uganda—I am sure hon. Members on this side of the Committee can multiply examples—can be fully compensated for the great help they have given this country in the last five years. It will be needed in order that these shocking cuts, which imperil social security and the whole sociological stability of the Colonial Territories, should not be allowed to go on.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I hope that the Government will accept this modest Amendment, which suggests that we should increase the amount of capital made available to the Colonial Territories. I do not know of any greater task that this country can perform than that of assisting the underdeveloped areas over which we have control to balance their economies.
The Russians are lending a lot of money to underdeveloped areas. They lent £5 million to the Yemen to build a great port facing the Red Sea and they lent that money at 2½ per cent. They lent the money which the World Bank should have supplied for the building of the high dam at Aswan, £37 million to Egypt, again at 2½ per cent. New forces are coming into the world today which have very important political consequences and are basically related to helping underdeveloped countries to win a decent life for themselves, so I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that I do not know of any task in which the Government and this country could better engage than the majestic task of making more capital available to the poorest peoples in the world.
It is estimated that out of the total world population of about 2,600 million, 1,500 million, many millions of whom live within British Colonial Territories, are under-fed, ill-clothed and continuously ill because of lack of medical attention, doctors and medicines. To lend money we need to have surpluses from savings. The average income per head of the population of the United Kingdom is £350. Therefore, we have opportunities to find surpluses for capital investment. But how can a territory like


Sierra Leone, where the average income per head of the population is about £15 per annum, do that? Their task is to maintain a bare physical hold on life. They have no surpluses whatever, not enough to buy a new shirt, never mind surpluses for capital investment.
There are great possibilities for agricultural development with the proper equipment, advice, technical colleges and instruction. There are possibilities of great development of the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone, but to develop these natural resources so that they can balance their economy and win a decent life are not possible unless they can start building roads. There is only one good hard road in the whole of Sierra Leone.
They still have scores of the old ferries where passengers have to wait for a little boat and where cars have to be dragged across the rivers. More money has to be made available. If we have to make sacrifices to make money available, that sacrifice is a majestic thing for us to make. We could not make sacrifices for a better cause than that of helping poor people all over our Colonial Territories to develop their economies.
5.45 p.m.
Of every seven children in Sierra Leone, only one has any opportunity of receiving primary education. All over the Protectorate there is a lack of teachers and any kind of education. People still die like flies from malaria and yellow fever in many parts of territories that are controlled by this House. Sierra Leone used to be the "White Man's Grave", but it was also the grave of the Africans. For every European who died, 1,000 Africans went to an early grave.
That sort of thing is still happening, because the expectation of life for millions of people in territories controlled by us is about thirty years, as against our expectation of sixty-seven years. In some territories under our control, on an average, the women die before reaching the age of 27, whereas the expectation of life of British women is 73. That is the measure of our relative security compared with their indescribable, grinding poverty.
This Bill, which suggests an increase of £3 million a year on what we previously

spent, does not scratch the surface of the problem with which we are dealing. If we are to deduct £2 million for Malta, £23 million is the maximum we can supply. In this age of electronics, automation and nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, this is a very modest contribution considering the magnitude of the problem to be dealt with. During the last fifteen years, for example, 1,000 million babies were born, but 200 million of them died before they reached their first birthday. Of those 1,000 million babies, 120 million may mature, have a good life and reach the age of 60, but they all live in the West, or in North America. Of the 200 million who died, many millions died in territories over which we have had control for a hundred years or more, territories which are rich in natural resources and need only capital to develop these resources so that the countries can look after themselves.
No one wants to suggest continued charity to countries. No one on this side of the Committee suggests that by artificial means we can impose high living standards on underdeveloped countries. They have to earn their own living so that they can build roads, hospitals and factories, but they have to have an opportunity of earning wealth. If there is no flow of capital investments for roads and hospitals, schools, etc., they cannot do that. In Sierra Leone, which I recently visited, there are 80,000 lepers in a total population of 2 million. There are no leper colonies, but they have to be treated at first-aid posts where there are no doctors. There are hospitals only in the main centres, in Freetown and Bo, while in the rest of the country little first-aid posts, where there are probationer African nurses, have to treat all kinds of diseases.
I should like to continue on this line, but there are many Amendments to be discussed. I beg the Government to have a good look at this Amendment. It allows for increasing the amount of money available for the important task set out in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. A. E. Oram: It has already been made clear that we are not moving to reduce the period mentioned in the Bill because we think that it would be good to have a shorter period. We are moving to reduce the period because, within the rules of order, that is our only way of indicating our


wish that in any year there should be an increased amount of resources available. But for that limitation I think that we should rather wish to extend the period covered by the Bill, because it is important that the people in the Colonies who have the day-to-day task of administering development and welfare schemes should have as long a period as possible in which they can feel assured that resources will be available.
Our purpose in moving the Amendment is to make sure that the utmost possible amount is available in any one year. That is what we ought to take as our yardstick in measuring the adequacy of what the Government propose. If we compare the Bill with what the 1945 Act did, we find that that Act provided for grants of £120 million over ten years, which is an average of £12 million a year. In the Bill it is proposed that a further £95 million shall be available over the next five years, which is an average of £19 million a year.
It is perfectly clear that since 1945 the value of money, as has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), has very considerably declined. Although it may be possible to prove that the present £19 million per year is, in real terms, a little larger than £12 million per year represented back in 1945, I do not think that the argument can be sustained that it is in any way a large increase in real terms over what we planned and did fourteen years ago.
It is true—I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will make this point—that the amounts now being made available are for a reduced population, because some of the territories have now reached dominion status, but further Amendments on the Notice Paper, which we shall be debating later, show that we on this side of the Committee are not in any way minded to accept the proposition that, if a territory attains its freedom or Dominion status, it does not qualify for aid under this legislation.
In making the comparison with what we were able to do in 1945, we ought to have in mind the vastly changed circumstances. There are four ways in which the situation is completely different. First, our own home economy was emerging from a war. Our economy was then on a war footing, whereas now,

although we have an immense defence programme, we are industrially on a peace footing. In terms of real wealth which the factories and fields of this country are turning out, our national income is probably 25 per cent. greater than it was in 1945. For that reason alone, we ought to be able to spare a great deal more than is proposed in the Bill.
Secondly, if we cast our minds back to the first substantial Colonial Development and Welfare Bill, we will remember that that was at a time when the country was in severe balance of payments difficulties. That was a dominant factor to be considered when deciding whether it was wise to take any course. Today, that factor is very much less of a hampering factor. It is, perhaps, true that our improved balance of payments situation is due to reasons for which we ought not to take any credit ourselves. It is partly due to the running down of the economy which the Government have brought about. To a very large extent it is due to the fall in commodity prices, and our import bill has been considerably less on that account.
There are two other reasons why we ought to be very much more imaginative and generous in what we are proposing to do in the Bill. Back in 1945, Colonial Territories could look forward to a period—in fact, that period did eventuate—in which they were on a rising market for the commodities which they exported. Now the situation is the reverse. It is always difficult to forecast what are likely to be the future terms of trade, but expert committees of G.A.T.T. have stated that, in their judgment, the terms of trade for primary producing countries in the future are most unlikely to improve.
The final great difference between the situation in 1945 and today is that what was planned then under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act was only part of a much wider programme for sustaining Colonial Territories. We set up the Colonial Development Corporation and, more important still, the Labour Government initiated bulk purchase arrangements, which were one of the main methods by which the economies of the Colonial Territories were sustained.
That has been abolished. I shall not argue the case for and against, but if the


Government sustain their policy of doing away with bulk purchase and if they are sincere in wishing for the welfare of Colonial Territories, they ought to be more generous in making loans and grants in the remaining part of the programme.
All those circumstances are radically different from what they were fourteen years ago. At home, we are a wealthier community. The balance of payments situation is less precarious. The trading prospects of the Colonies are much less healthy. The Government have knocked away one of the main props of colonial economic well-being. For all these reasons, it is most essential that the annual amount which we are prepared to provide in the way which the Bill sets out to do should be very much more generous. That is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: The speeches made by hon. Members this afternoon suggest virtually that what we intend to spend over a certain number of years should be spent in half of the time. I do not intend to go over the ground already covered, because it has been very well dealt with by my hon. Friends and I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary of State is already weighing the considerations they have advanced. I shall confine myself to one point only.
I must state, first, that certainly compared with pre-war a greatly increased sense of responsibility for colonial development is detectable in the House. There is equally an awareness that what we are making provision for in the Bill is partly a repayment to the colonial peoples of all the wealth we have gained from their territories in the past.
It is good for us to be reminded today that although we are making this provision, which is certainly an encouraging advance on bygone days, it is not so substantial as it might at first sight seem to be. We should, therefore, be more seized of our responsibility than we are.
6.0 p.m.
The comment I wish to make is on the relationship of the Bill, and what it attempts to provide, to the political needs of the colonial areas. Although I know that I must not go beyond this Bill, I think it is legitimate to show that it has

an implicit political significance. For instance, criticisms have been made that many of our colonial peoples are as yet ill-equipped for the responsibility of self-government, but assurances are given that when they are better equipped fuller responsibility will be given to them.
The difficulty is that at the present rate many of the indigenous peoples who are alleged not yet to be equipped for responsibility, and their successors, will die before that standard is reached. Schools must be built to educate the illiterate. Roads are necessary to link up the country. All the means by which we can help to prepare these populations for their future responsibilities cannot be fulfilled unless much more substantial sums are allocated than those at present made available.
Looking closely at the figures, we could draw up a time plan that would cover, at the present rate, perhaps 50 or 60 years before even adequate educational facilities are available for the next generation. I stress, therefore, that if we wish our actions to appear to the world to be consistent with our expressions and not hypocritical, we cannot leave matters merely with the assurance that in the course of time all the Colonial Territories will emerge into freedom, self-government and self-responsibility.
No doubt we are quite sincere when we say that, but we can understand the charge of hypocrisy that is laid against us. Even though it may be true that we are technically and nominally preparing the way for self-government, we are not doing nearly enough to prepare the people themselves to exercise the powers when they are bestowed. When the American negroes were freed their freedom bewildered them. They were released from their chains but, not knowing what to do, they were in some ways in a worse plight than before.
That is a legitimate although not an exact parallel with what we are doing in some of the colonial areas. We are preparing the way to political freedom and self-government and the transference of very great responsibility to those who in many ways may not yet be adequately equipped to undertake it. That is not an argument for withholding that transference of responsibility; it only emphasises our need to be consistent in what we profess, and to accept the fact


that it means extending the necessary finance to enable the people to develop the mental and other equipment necessary for the great responsibilities of their future. I therefore urge the Government to recognise that the principle now admitted by us all urgently needs implementation and to accept the Amendment.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I know only too well how easy it is to argue that more money should be spent on colonial development and that more colonial development schemes should be started. Perhaps more than any other hon. Member I know the difficulties attendant on these schemes. I know full well, as do others who have been associated with past schemes of colonial development, that in the end they cost far more than was originally thought and take a considerably longer time to achieve.
Everything goes wrong with these schemes. The bridges go, the roads go, the rain does not fall, or it rains too much. Something else proves intractable. I know all the arguments, and I know how true they are. I know, too, how it can appear to be facile on the part of an Opposition to say, "If the Government are empowered to spend more money, everything in the garden will be lovely and we shall have more schemes."
It will not work that way at all. In many cases, the experts who are working on schemes are not inhibited by lack of money but by certain technical limitations placed upon them. That, however, is not true of all development. In particular, it is not true of education.
When I lived and worked in Africa, I found that men would come to the place where I worked, some of them having walked 100 miles, 200 miles—occasionally even 500 miles—to find work. They did so, but not because they themselves particularly wanted to work. I discovered that the African has this strong bond of community with the European—he is not all that enamoured of the idea of working for a living.
The man walked because he believed that the job he thought he would get would provide an opportunity for the education of his children. He would go to inordinate lengths and would make very considerable sacrifices if only he

could know that his children—brought up in conditions so squalid as not to bear description—could have the chance to attend a little school in the shade of the beobab tree and learn the alphabet and some part of the multiplication tables. I was greatly impressed, and I became convinced that the one thing we can give with comparative speed to the colonial peoples is education.
What are we doing? I shall not range widely but will confine myself to what we are doing in a country now in the news—Nyasaland. I speak of this because, although I have made very clear my acceptance of the difficulties inherent in all these schemes. I want the Minister to give careful consideration to the vital part that education has to play in Nyasaland in the next few years.
As I read the figures, the colonial development and welfare funds have spent, or earmarked, £588.000 in the period from 1946 to 31st March of last year on primary and secondary education in Nyasaland. That amount has been spent over a period of twelve years on a population of some 3 million people. If we divide the amount by the potential number of school children it works out at no more than a few miserable pence per head each year.
The total expenditure of the Nyasaland Government on education in 1957—the last year for which I have figures—appears to be in the region of £700,000. It is a far greater burden on the pockets of the Nyasalanders to find £700,000 in one year than it is for us to provide £600,000 over a period of twelve years. We have not been spending enough on education. I know the difficulties about teachers and building schools, although it is not necessary to build palatial concrete schools in African countries. These difficulties, however, can be overcome if there is a determination that we will bring to these countries the educational facilities which they must have if they are to take their place in the march towards progress.
Last year, 13 people out of 3 million living in Nyasaland were entitled to higher education either at the Makerere College, at Witwatersrand or elsewhere. One Nyasa was allowed to go to Witwatersrand. I think that this will be his last year, when the South African Government segregates Witwatersrand.


Four came to Bristol and others went elsewhere. Thirteen out of nearly 3 million Nyasas were given the facilities to go to a university or a school of higher learning. This is pitiful, and we should not regard this as a satisfactory outcome of what we are trying to do.
When the Colonial Secretary, with that
air of gay well being and with not a hair out of place on his handsome head".
—I am quoting from last night's Evening Standard—spoke on the Second Reading, I thought that he showed a certain complacency, not about what he had done, but about what he is going to do under the Bill. While educational facilities languish in our Colonies and the situation in Nyasaland which I have described continues we cannot be satisfied, and for that reason we have tabled this Amendment.

Mr. Harold Davies: It would be rather boring to reiterate many points made about the poverty of the colonial areas. That is well known. I therefore want to try to keep to a point that I have made many times in colonial debates. Whatever Government are in power, if we are arming like Sparta, we have to live like Sparta. If we spend a colossal amount on an arms programme which is almost defunct before it starts we cannot find the finances which are necessary for the uplift of the Colonies. There is, therefore, the paradox that in our strength we can lose our Colonies because of dissatisfaction.
The purpose of the Amendment, although it may appear obscure to the uninitiated, is to concertina into a shorter period a certain amount of investment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). We must ask ourselves: from where will we get the greatest return? The greatest return will come from mass education projects. If we aim at creating university graduates we shall take too long. The plumber is needed in civilisation before the medical man. This is a fact that airy-fairy economists who write about backward areas often forget.
I have returned from a visit to some of the so-called backward areas, namely, Indo-China and South-East Asia, only this week. Here we have a civilisation which is in-ringed between the hula-hoop and dedicated to Coca-Cola and 7-Up, 500 miles from civilisation. What are the complaints of the experts who are

sent to the backward areas? It is that they are sent for six weeks or six months, but there is no follow-up because the necessary finance is not available. The Truman Point Four Plan, the Colombo Plan and plans under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act must be followed up or the continuity and purpose of the project will be lost.
Poor old Britain, both under the Labour Government and under this Government, have been pretending for years that we have been pouring money into the Colonies. The truth is completely the opposite. We are still in pawn to the Colonies if we add up the sterling balances and debts which we owe to them as the result of their contribution to the last war. When the Labour Party was in power it was scoffed at, but I was glad to hear my hon. Friend point out that the first-class policy of the Labour Party was to try to establish stability of prices in the colonial areas by giving the colonial producer and merchant stable prices over a certain period. The only way to do it is by bulk buying.
As I have said before, the outstanding hook on the backward areas is Professor MacMahon Ball's book, Nationalism in South-East Asia, in which he points out the fallacy of the Truman Point Four Plan, the Colombo Plan and the Colonial Development and Welfare Plan. Stable prices must be maintained. A drop of so many points in the price of tin, zinc or copper destroys overnight the entire purpose of an extra £3 million worth of aid. There should be a colonial conference on this one problem to which other countries may be invited to discuss the main economic problem of the so-called backward areas.
The problem is how to give primary producing areas stability of price. To achieve that object, the United States, the Western technical countries and Britain should make bulk buying agreements on the stability of prices for a two or three-year period. That should not be beyond the wit of man. If we do not do that, all schemes for aid will disappear in thin air.
In the wisdom of the Labour Party, knowing that we cannot hope to have stable prices under a Conservative Government and that they are not intelligent enough to have a bulk buying policy for the backward areas, we tabled


an Amendment which seeks to concertina investment into these areas to try to keep up with the drop in prices of raw materials. Whatever Government are in power, no scheme is likely to succeed If there are continuous drops in the price of the raw materials that colonial areas produce. I sincerely hope that the Minister will realise that we are not talking for the sake of it, and that we are concerned about the progress of colonial areas.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I intend to be very brief at this stage, because I know that we all want to hear the views of the Under-Secretary of State. The Committee has been impressed by instance after instance given by my right hon. and hon. Friends of the need for something further to be done for the Colonies. It is a remarkable commentary that in something which is supposed to be so dear to the Tory Party not one hon. Member opposite has seen fit to say a word about it.
It seems to me that we should do something on the lines suggested by the Amendment or find more money for colonial development which would bring about the same result for two main reasons. First, we have a responsibility for the well-being of the colonial peoples. It is not a responsibility merely to give them doles or sops, but a responsibility to put them on their feet and to enable them to earn their own living. Secondly, it is in our interest to give economic support to our colonial dependencies to help them to stand on their own feet so that they, in turn, can help us by maintaining production and exports and by building up markets to take goods from this country, and, by so doing, building up our own economic strength.
More important, however, is the political reason. As these dependencies are rapidly advancing towards self-determination, it is in our interest to ensure that they remain within the British Commonwealth. One of the greatest psychological factors in enabling them to do this is the amount of help which we give them before they reach that stage. Anyone who has been into a school which has been built with colonial development and welfare money, or has seen a water scheme in an area where water is badly needed brought about by

colonial development and welfare money, or to a hospital in an area where there is a serious epidemic will know that notices are displayed to the effect that so much money has been provided from the colonial development and welfare funds.
Those are the greatest arguments for the maintenance of their connection with this country when independence comes to them. If we balance what has been done against what has to be done, we see how great the task is. If we take over education, health, hospitals, and transport to open up these areas to give a better standard in place of the wretched conditions under which people are living the task ahead will be enormous when measured against what we have been doing and intend to do in this Measure. What we are intending to do is only a fleabite against what must be done. We have to spend more in adventures overseas in a few months than we have spent in years of colonial development and welfare.
If we go through the Ministry of Supply Estimates and the Army Estimates we see that we have lost a great deal of money in ordering 1 million pairs of extra boots. This money could have gone towards the building of a fine hospital or school, or to provide a water supply in some of our Colonial Territories. We are not asking for the earth. We are asking that the amount we give should be at least doubled. Whether it is done as provided in the form of the Amendment, or by doubling the grant, does not matter. The important thing is that the money should be found.
The Lord Privy Seal holds the opinion that we could double our standard of living in twenty-five years. Does that statement apply to the Colonies? If it does, we have got to do much more than we have done hitherto. We have to bear in mind that we shall not always be living under a stagnant Tory economy, when we can give only what we are able to give at the moment. With an expanding economy which will enable our national product to' increase without necessarily increasing taxation, we should see that prior charge is given to the development of our colonial dependencies by increasing the amount of money we are providing under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

Mr. James Johnson: I detect signs, not of impatience, but a desire to be on with the job by the junior Minister on the Front Bench opposite and, indeed, in the hon. Lady below me. Since I am batting almost last I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes.
I want shortly to make two points. First, in the past we have not been able to spend as much as we would have liked on our dependent territories because it is admitted that we had not got the technicians and members of the public service to go out to these territories. For the first time in our debates this argument has gone, since the Colonial Secretary told us in the Second Reading debate that it is now easy, or, at least, possible, to get schoolmasters, engineers, and, of course, plumbers to go out and man the services.
That old argument having gone and we now being able to vote the money, and the money being satisfactorily disposed of, the Minister patted himself on the back a few weeks ago and said that we were now to spend £25 million a year for five years, which is an enormous advance. Of course it is, but the sum of money expended must now be larger than that.
Each year more and more students come to this country and then return home. No longer are we on a slowly moving escalator, but a fast toboggan. These men go back to their own country and inculcate in their own people not merely higher and higher standards, but more and more urgent desires to get the things they want. It is an ever-quickening tempo. The world today is moving faster and faster. These young men go back as leaders and create in their own people a desire to make more demands and for the demands to be satisfied.
While I place much of the responsibility for the present state of affairs in Nyasaland on the Ministers opposite, the trouble is much more deep-seated than that. At one time the Nyasas led East and Central Africa, in the field of education, before the First World War, in the early days of the Church of Scotland. Between the two wars, in days of economy, because the missions did not receive financial help, the Nyasas fell back. The Nyasas, once having led Central Africa, now lag behind and this explains their sense of frustration. It behoves the Minister to devote more cash to these people's education in this purely

political context of Federation in view of the conference in about eighteen months' time.
So far, the Somalis have not been mentioned. We understand from the Minister's statement that next year they will be allowed to opt for union with the ex-Italian Somalis in the south. Since the end of the war Italy has spent over £24 million in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia. We are patting ourselves on the back because we have voted, but have not yet spent, £2¼ million over five years for our northern Somalis.
We should spend much more because it is a question not merely of satisfying the peoples in these dependent territories in their demands for health and education, but, more important, of giving them a fair deal alongside their cousins in other former empires. Our Somalis feel that they have lagged behind those to the south. When union comes, in future, the people in Hargeisa will not be equipped to play their part alongside the ex-Italian Somalis of Mogadishu. They will lag behind and take second place to those who have for so long been behind them.
In two, three, four or five years they will go ahead faster than our people in the northern half, yet because we fear Nasser and his propaganda the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can spend thousands of pounds building a wireless station at Berbera to counter this anti-British propaganda. We can spend money in Berbera because we fear the spoken word in the bazaars of the Middle East, but we have not spent money in the last five or ten years, or even five or ten months, on our Somalis. Yet they are human, like us, with human desires for things like we have in the United Kingdom.
This is a point to which the Minister ought to direct his attention. He should realise that these are places in respect of which we should spend more money. I am told that we could increase the global sum from £25 million to £30 million, or even £50 million if we could get the men to go out. It is merely a matter of the Government of the day to assigning more money to get the men to go out and work in education, local government and public health, and all the other things which are needed.
I draw the Minister's attention to these territories and ask him to think again before he rises to answer the debate.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I first came to this House over thirty-six years ago, but this is the first time that I have ventured to take part in a colonial affairs debate. I would not do so now but for the fact that, last year, Mr. Speaker nominated me as one of the Members to go to the West Indies to present to the Federation House of Representatives a mace from this House. During my stay in the West Indies I had so enlightening a time, particularly in my association with those interested in the spread of education in those islands, that I do not think that I ought to remain silent this afternoon. I shall try to prevent the urge to speak from making me speak for too long.
I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said about the people of the West Indies. It is astonishing to be in a place where there is no colour consciousness. When a speaker confronts an audience of teachers, who ask him, as a fellow-teacher, to speak to them, he finds every possible shade of human colour there. There are white-robed Roman Catholic school masters from the United States, right across to people of whom I hope I shall not be accused of saying anything patronising if I say that they are quite obviously pure-bred negroes, and, in between, Chinese, Hindus and Pakistanis. There are also hybrids from the most astounding amalgams from that wide range of races.
When such a meeting begins a person coming from a country such as this is acutely conscious of the differences of colour, but after a short period of discussion, when he puts less weight upon the colour of the speaker and is simply listening to the argument being adduced, he forgets about colour. That is what I mean by the complete absence of colour consciousness.
As representatives from this House we had the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Sir T. Dugdale), the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and myself. We had the great advantage of being entertained both by the island

Government and the Federation Government. On one occasion we were entertained by a delightful choir, consisting of people of the same range of colour as had been present at the meeting to which I have referred. People in the choir took their places not according to any basis of race, but according to their appropriate ability to deal with certain items.
I was informed by those capable of judging music, including a former Tory Chief Whip, who is now the Governor-General of the West Indian Federation, that it was a most accomplished performance. I am not capable of judging, since I am completely tone deaf, and only know by reason of the company I am in, or when the audience rises, that they are singing "God Save the Queen", or the "Red Flag".
In the West Indies compulsory education of a sort—by which I mean that there is a sort of compulsion; it is not as effective as it should be—is given between the ages of six and 12. A Federation university has also been established in Jamaica, and the period between 12 years of age and entry to the university is covered by a voluntary arrangement for attending school, and by schools provided from voluntary efforts.
We also saw the Texaco oil wells. That firm takes youths into employment at about the age of 13 and watches them for the first two years. Those who appear to be of a sufficiently high intelligence are then put on to the skilled trades ancillary to this important industry, and at the end of two years they are shifted into one of five skilled trades. In that way the firm was able to spot one boy who, when we were there, was studying in the University of Manchester at the firm's expense, and he will be going back to carry on his life's work with that firm after acquiring high technical qualifications. I also visited Malta with the Under-Secretary. There we were told that the great problem was to place technical skill at the disposal of youths who had the same limited form of primary education, with very little secondary education.
If we are to make our Colonies places where ordinary people can live self-respecting lives, believing that they are using their native abilities in a far higher


form of employment than has been possible hitherto, we must do a great deal, by way of the colonial development and welfare funds, to provide secondary education of the widest type in order to prepare people not merely for universities, whether in their own country or here, but also for the employment of those skills which must be the basis of the trade of any self-respecting community aspiring to live an intelligent life of its own.
I was greatly impressed by the desire among certain people with whom I discussed the matter that this should be made possible, and I hope that, not merely in the West Indies but throughout the Commonwealth, we shall devote more money to this purpose. It is essential that young men and women who have the capacity for being trained should receive the necessary training among their own people so that they are able, without having to accept the responsibilities of self-government, to feel that they have in their native resources the capacity to deal with all those economic problems which must be solved by highly educated youths passing on to manhood.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I do not want to prolong the debate for more than a few minutes, or to repeat the arguments which have been put forward so well by my hon. Friends, explaining why the Government should accept the Amendment, which will have the effect of compressing the period of investment by two years.
I rise to speak only because I want to add one thought which I do not think has been mentioned. It concerns public and private investment in the Colonies and Commonwealth, which is a matter of vital interest to this country as well as to the people of Africa. The interests of the two people are the same. The old Mother Country and the young developing countries are different sides of the same coin.
We must remember that we are at some disadvantage now, because the Free Trade Area in Europe has temporarily broken down, and it may remain so for some time. As a consequence, it is likely that our trade with the Continent will suffer in the near future; we do not yet know how things will work out. But one trade area, spread all over the world, is open to us, if we can only find the money to help investment to raise the standard of

living of the colonial peoples, and to help their general economic development. We are, perhaps, in a better position to do so now than we were a short time ago, because we have an active trade balance. We must invest that and as much else as we can in the Colonies and the Commonwealth.
I do not think that we can do it entirely ourselves. We must have the assistance of the United States—and why not? If we can then form a great investment area for social and economic improvement in what is now our Colonies and Commonwealth, that would be a very good outlet and we could then probably not worry so much about Europe, and, perhaps, Europe—the Common Market—would be coming along and wanting to take part in this great overseas development.
That is the idea I want to put forward to the Committee. It is, to some extent, a race against time. There is now a growing feeling of independence running through Africa, like there has been throughout the Middle East and South-East Asia, taking on unpleasant political forms. One of the ways, but not by any means the only way, in which we can meet that is to show that by staying within this great Commonwealth of nations, economic security is vouchsafed. Therefore, in this race against time, the Bill, small though it is, is extremely important and this little Amendment, which aims at compressing the period of investment, would help to secure the aim which, I am sure, we are all trying to achieve.

Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to speak for more than two or three minutes. Indeed, when I came into the Chamber this evening, I had no intention of speaking at all. There are, however, many hon. Members opposite who seem to think that we have done little or nothing in developing and helping the Colonies over the last twenty or thirty years. I know that many hon. Members opposite have visited the Colonies in comparatively recent years and learnt a great deal about them. Those visits have been most valuable and it is a pity that we cannot do much more of that work.
Through the years, the Colonial Office has done most valuable work. It has not done everything right—at times, I should


be the first to criticise it—but, taking its work by and large, during the last thirty years it has done an extraordinarily fine job of work. Although hon. Members may visit different parts of the Colonies for the first time or, perhaps, the second time and by our standards in this country see how far behind they are, perhaps they do not realise how much has been achieved in the last thirty years.
I speak with a little more knowledge of some of the Eastern Colonies and Malaya in particular, because I have visited there fairly regularly for the last thirty-five years. Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not realise the immense amount of social welfare work which has been going on there, quite apart from Government and Colonial Office agencies. It has been little spoken of and many people do not realise it, but I assure the Committee that on the rubber estates of Malaya, for example, of which I have some little knowledge, there have been fairly full welfare state conditions for the last thirty years. They have had their schools, their hospitals, their maternity benefit and their creches.
6.45 p.m.
That has all been done by private enterprise, sometimes in very difficult conditions. Indeed, when the price of rubber or tin may have been very low and it would have been to the immense advantage of everyone, as one hon. Member has pointed out, if there could have been some stabilisation of prices, that has been tried but found to be most difficult. If it were possible, I should be all in favour of it. Indeed, I am constantly trying to search out methods of so doing.
Hon. Members opposite should not decry our colonial system, which has proudly been the best in the world. We have not had facilities or money to achieve as much as we should like, but a great deal of private enterprise, in the form of rubber, tea, oil and other companies, has done a very great deal for the benefit of the colonial peoples which perhaps has not been adequately recognised by some hon. Members opposite.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in opening the debate this afternoon, assured us that in cutting down

the period of years, as his Amendment seeks to do, there is no intention of cutting down the aid. I assure the hon. Member that it never crossed my mind that that was his intention. There was a time, many years ago, when the party opposite was an appendage of the Liberal Party, when all expenditure on the Empire, as it was then called, was regarded with suspicion. It is, however, one of the great advances of our political life since the war that the two parties have, to a certain extent, competed and striven to see which could produce, at least on the development and welfare side, the better plans and programmes for the well-being of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I welcome the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved, even though, as I must explain in the course of my remarks, the Government cannot accept it as it stands.
Before I come to the reasons that impel me to say that, I should like to deal with some of the points which have been raised during the debate, because in endeavouring to answer them I shall to some extent be building up the case which I have to make in reply. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the need in the West Indies for technical advisers, and it is a crying need. Such advisers as there are are largely provided, as the hon. Member knows, as a result of the colonial development and welfare grants. It may well be that under the allocations of the next quinquennium they will be increased.
How those allocations are made is a problem that the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East raised on Second Reading. He did not refer to it today, but I was interested by what the hon. Member said in our last debate, and I have made a point of sitting in at some of the meetings at which these allocations are decided. I assure the hon. Member that the organisation of the Office in this respect seems to me, at least, with my limited experience of administration, completely satisfactory, and that it is treated at a very high level—indeed, at as high a level as is possible—in the Colonial Office, that full time is given to it and that the conclusions do not flow, as, I think, the hon. Member at one time suspected, from each man batting entirely for his own parish, but that there is a wide understanding of the general common need of the Colonial Empire as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Middles-brough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to the relationship of the help we were giving to the Colonies to the help which they had given us under the sterling balances. It is, of course, true that the debt of this country to the great dollar earners of the Colonial Empire in the immediate post-war period is very great. We can also claim, at least in certain cases, if not in all, to have played a great part in helping them in the war. But, without trying to strike a balance, there is no doubt at all that they were of immense help to us.
Nevertheless, the Colonial sterling balances today are not really as great as has sometimes been thought, and the extent to which they are already committed is very considerable. To begin with, I think it has to be remembered that the balances are not evenly held by different Colonies. Nearly one-quarter, for instance, of the present total is held by Brunei and Hong Kong. In East and West Africa the strain on balances as the result of the fall in commodity prices is considerable. There is not all that much room for manoeuvre with the balances.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that because of the help we have received from the Colonies in the immediate postwar period we ought to make a larger contribution in the help we give them at present when the trends of trade have turned in our favour. The increase in the colonial development and welfare grants does to some extent reflect the increased help which we can give. If we have not been as generous as the right hon. Gentleman would have wished in the past, it has been partly for reasons which I am sure he will understand when he considers these remarks. Sterling area policies designed to fortify sterling as a whole were in a sense just as much in the interest of the Colonies as in ours, and it might have been a very great mistake had we embarked on an attempt to help them with policies which, by weakening sterling, could only in the end have brought injury and suffering to them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East also spoke of the shortfall in the assistance we were

giving to Kenya. He said, if I understood him aright, that the Government of Kenya had said they could have spent more than the sum they were receiving had greater finance been available. It is important to appreciate that the cut in the Kenya programme is not in items which would have been financed in the ordinary course by development and welfare grants but in items which would have been financed by loans; and the Government of Kenya found difficulty in placing loans on the market. It is, of course, to meet this difficulty that in this Bill we are bringing forward the Exchequer loans, which are to be discussed in greater detail later today. The cut is not quite as drastic as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Over the last three years the Kenya Government have been spending just over £9 million instead of just under £10 million which was what they had hoped to spend.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), whose speeches I always find extremely convincing, spoke of the problems of Sierra Leone and the absence in Sierra Leone of a leper colony. I remember in wartime coming back through West Africa and visiting a leper colony in The Gambia, and a very piteous and pathetic sight it was. I am no expert in these matters, but I am advised that modern medical thought leans away from the segregation of lepers. I think that that is the explanation why there is not a leper colony in Sierra Leone at the present time.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) laid particular stress, rightly, if I may say so, on the need to spend on education. He also emphasised that it is much easier to spend on education than on schemes of which he has had experience, where technical staff and so on play their part. What he says is true within certain limits, but teacher training and so on is not as rapid a business as is sometimes thought.
I do not think the record over education is as much to be criticised as some have implied—nearly £13 million on primary and secondary education, £5½ million on technical education, and £10½ million on higher education, all from development and welfare grants, when it is realised that much the greater part of the expenditure, particularly on primary and secondary education, comes, of course,


from the local colonial budget on what the Colonies regard as their most urgent social service.

Sir L. Plummer: I have been doing a rapid calculation as the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. I make the total to be something under £30 million, which in 12 years is about £2½ million a year. Spread among many people who have it, it is pretty thin on the ground.

Mr. Amery: In relation to the number of teachers available? The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who was in St. Helena recently and has been studying very carefully the position in St. Helena, has come up against the great difficulty there of finding teachers; and people have been sent from St. Helena for teacher training here and have not returned. The problem there is not entirely different from some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the beginning of his remarks.
He spoke in particular about education in Nyasaland, as did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). Because the matter is topical at present, I would only say that there has been very nearly a fourfold increase in expenditure on education since 1953. when Federation was introduced. The figures are; in 1952, £241,635; in 1953 to 1954, just over £500,000; in 1957 to 1958 it had gone up already to very nearly £566,000; and the estimate for the year just ending is just over £700,000. There has been a substantial increase there.
The hon. Member for Rugby also referred to the problem in Somaliland, It may be that progress in Somaliland has in some respects not been as fast as in Somalia, but we have in fact been particularly successful in increasing the rate of development expenditure which is almost wholly financed by development and welfare grants. The annual figures, looking back over the last four years, not to take them beyond that, are £80,000 in 1955–56, £90,000 in 1956–57, £500,000 in 1957–58, and £700,000 in the year just ended.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), in an otherwise interesting and restrained speech, spoke of the great contribution, as he put it, which the Labour Government had made in their time towards stabilising the prices of primary

commodities. I would not altogether dispute what he said. I am by no means dogmatic, and never have been, on this matter of bulk purchase, but I would quote one statement from the Economic Survey for Europe for 1948, which has been reproduced in Socialist Party publications with some pride. This is what it says:
The explanation of the relatively low prices paid by the United Kingdom for its imports of food and raw materials appears to lie largely in the extensive use which has been made of long-term contracts and bulk purchasing agreements covering a large proportion of its purchases.
We in this country may have benefited to some extent by the fact that as a result of these arrangements relatively low prices were paid, but in a debate of this sort, in which we are saying that our primary duty is to ensure a rising standard of living among the people of the Colonies, this does not sound quite so good. In fact, it sounds a little bit like old-fashioned exploitation.

Mr. Harold Davies: The fact is that we can get relative stability of prices even with moderate or low prices if they are maintained over a long period of time, and that is better than having prices moving up and down, which puts the small producer out of business. I will not argue too much about it, but I think there is point in my argument as well as in what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Amery: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member was entirely wrong in what he said. I am only saying that there is another side to this point. Where the balancing out argument comes, a great deal can be done by commodity funds such as have been developed in Uganda. I should have thought that the experience of Uganda in profiting by the high prices and making a cushion against a fall in prices had shown what a good arrangement it was.
It is hard to tell what impact all this will have over decades on the standard of living of the Colonial peoples. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) questioned whether we should double their standard of living over the 25-year period mentioned on another occasion by the Leader of the House. That is hard to say. However, they seem to be well on the way to doubling


their population, which is an indication in one sense of prosperity. It is also an indication of a very serious problem to which both sides of the House must give their minds, but it is an indication of sufficient nutrition and better health.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) gave a very interesting and happy account of meetings that he had had in the West Indies. Some of us who go overseas to the Commonwealth have fortunate experiences like that, but others have more difficult experiences, such as those which we have recently been debating. Sometimes it might be a good thing if we spent a little money on encouraging our own people at home to learn rather more about what happens in the Commonwealth. The other day I met a distinguished Chinese from Singapore who had spent much of his life working for the Co-operative and Labour movement. He visited the United Kingdom and was invited to speak in a mining village in Wales. The meeting was well attended. The chairman introduced the distinguished Chinese politician from Singapore who had long experience of our ways of political life. However, the chairman said: "We are privileged tonight to have with us the representative of a backward people, in this case a Malay. He does not know anything about our procedure. Perhaps we had better explain to him how a meeting works." There is a need for us to learn a little more so that we can tell our constituents more about conditions overseas and the progress which is being made.
To try to draw together the conclusions which the Government reach from the criticism which has been put forward today and from similar criticism in the Second Reading debate, I would say that we are faced with two difficulties when it comes to increasing the expenditure on development and welfare, which is what the hon. Gentleman's Amendment aims at. There is one difficulty which I am glad to say is becoming less, though it is still with us. That is the difficulty on the human side, that of finding the skilled staff, recruiting the necessary organisation and drawing up the plans. This used to be the overriding problem in the days when the hon. Member for Deptford was actively engaged in these matters. It was the hardest nut of all to crack. It is becoming less, but the Colonies do not

all move at exactly the same rate, and some of them still suffer to a considerable extent in this respect.
Others suffer—this is the growing problem which we face—from the difficulty of financing the recurrent costs—this is a point which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) was leading up to—of the development schemes which development and welfare grants help to bring about. These difficulties are very real. While it is easy to say that one could spend more money, it is significant that from the very beginning of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act we have not yet succeeded in a single period in spending all the money which Parliament has voted. Expenditure has always lagged behind the money voted by the House. This happened when the Labour Party was in power just as it has happened while the Conservative Party has been in power; this is not a partisan matter.
Under the Bill a total of £139½ million will be available to be spent in the next five years. Even allowing for depreciation in the value of money, it is still a substantial increase on the amount of money which has been available in any previous quinquennium. Leaving aside the £6¾ million allocated to Nigeria and the £6 million or so to be committed to the Malta dockyard, this leaves more than £25 million a year to be spent compared with £12 million in 1945. The fact remains that in no year so far have the Colonies been able to spend more than £20 million in one year.
For all these reasons, the Government do not feel that they can accept the Amendment, but I should like to try to meet as far as I can the strong feeling which I recognise in the House. We have begun to try to meat it in one way by taking off the ceiling on annual expenditure. I would point out—I hope this may help the hon. Gentleman—that if it seems desirable to the House and the Government in power at the time, we could always introduce the next Bill, as we have this one, a year ahead of the expiry of the period—in 1963—and provide for a year's overlap then. To spend all the money in four years instead of five years would call for an expenditure of £31½ million a year, or £10 million a year more than was spent by this time last year, the highest year on record.
That is something which could be done under this Measure, and it would then be up to the House of Commons to decide what would be the next stage. At any rate, I hold this out to the House as something which could be done. Whether it will be right to do it and whether the Colonial Governments themselves would wish to do it will depend very largely on their ability to finance the recurrent costs of expenditure undertaken, and this opens the whole broad question of the future of their trade. Here at any rate, whatever differences there may be between us on methods—bulk purchase and so on—I think there is strong agreement on both sides of the House that the success of the expenditure proposed in the Measure depends very largely on our being able to promote a steady and increasing volume of inter-Commonwealth trade.

Mr. Callaghan: I recognise that the Under-Secretary has gone some part of the way to meet us. We are not anxious to divide the House merely for the sake of dividing on this matter. What is important is the intention of the Government in the period before 1962. All of us recognise that it will be open to the Government—any Government—in 1962 to introduce a new Bill; but is the Under-Secretary saying that it is now the Government's intention to try to step up the amount of expenditure which is laid down annually? If he is not going to say to us that he is doing any more than dividing the present £95 million by five, or whatever it is, I do not think we can meet on this matter, but if he is saying that where Colonies can show that they can properly spend more and not waste it—the case of Kenya has been mentioned—he will be willing to meet them and enable them to raise their development and welfare expenditure, that would be a valuable concession.

Mr. Amery: With regard to Kenya, I think that the hon. Gentleman was confusing two issues. The cut in the Kenya expenditure has fallen on the services that would normally be financed by loan rather than by grant. It is to meet that difficulty that we have introduced the proviso about Exchequer loans in this Bill and about which there will be, I understand, a debate later this evening.

Mr. Marquand: This hardly alters the fact that the Kenya Government specifically said that it could spend £50 million without any waste but it had to cut the total programme to £30 million. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it could possibly raise £20 million by loans on the London market. Surely the Government ought to give them now a larger grant to help them during this difficult period.

Mr. Amery: The important point is that a number of the services that had to be cut back were the ones that would be financed by loans. The right hon. Gentleman raised this question only a short time ago, and I have not been able to look into it in detail. In replying to the hon. Gentleman's point, we have always wished—and this I must underline—to see the money voted by Parliament spent up to the hilt. In an effort to make this easier than it has been before, we have deliberately taken the ceiling off the annual expenditure and, therefore, wherever we see a chance of pushing ahead with useful, valuable expenditure, it will be done. That has always been our intention, and it is our intention more than ever today. It is in token of that that we have taken off the ceiling.
I have tried to explain to the hon. Member that it is open to us on the basis of the quinquennial Act when we come to review the position in 1963 after four years—

Mr. Callaghan: "We"?

Mr. Amery: The House, the Government—and I have no doubt who "we" will be either—and the Committee. It is quite possible, now that the ceiling has gone, for expenditure to be over the four years at a five-year rate, but it will be a gamble, but a fairly good gamble, whether when the time comes the House will vote the overlap, as it were, in reverse. I cannot commit the Government or pledge the Government to this particular course because the great difficulty is that we have not been able in any one year to spend anything like £25 million which would be the five-year division of the sum at present before the Committee.
The most that I can say to the hon. Member is that it is our intention in every


way we can to promote useful and constructive development up to the maximum allowed under the sums voted or asked for in the Bill before the Committee at the present time. I think that there is no doubt in the Committee that if there were to be entirely changed circumstances and it were much easier to spend the money than it has been hitherto, the Government of the day would not be unwilling to come back and ask for more if necessary.

Mr. Creech Jones: In the matter of recurrent charges, is it possible for some easement to be made under the terms of the Bill, because that would be of considerable assistance in the territory itself? Secondly, is it not possible to encourage the Colonial Governments themselves to submit many of the schemes which are waiting on the stocks and which they would love to get on with but cannot because they have not the funds available?
7.15 p.m.
I appreciate the importance that hitherto we have attached to the problem of how the territory is to meet recurring charges on any new service or new development that is created. Here funds are not available under the colonial development and welfare Acts. Would it not be possible to ease the position of the Colonial Governments by making it possible for a certain proportion of the money available to be used for the recurrent charges?

Mr. Amery: There may be certain possibilities, and I should like to refer to them in greater detail later on an Amendment which touches that more directly, for a combination of loan and grant. I do not know how far that meets what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it seems to me to be one way of alleviating the problem.

Mr. Callaghan: We do not want to vote on this if we can avoid it. The Under-Secretary will know that I am only pressing for clarification on this matter. Is he willing to or does he intend to go to these territories and say to them, "If you have plans which we have hitherto turned down on financial grounds and you have the physical resources and the manpower and technical skill available to do them, put them forward again and within the limit of the total sum voted by Parliament we shall be ready to acceler-

ate them now irrespective of the annual limit of the total sum divided by five." If the hon. Gentleman is free to say that that will be the policy, I would be inclined to withdraw the Amendment on the basis of that assurance.

Mr. Amery: I have expressly explained and the Bill expressly provides that the annual ceiling which has hitherto been a feature of these Bills is not there. It has gone. Therefore, it is perfectly open to any Colony to put forward schemes for speeding up development. Indeed, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my experience, short as it is, at the Colonial Office that it is not slow in encouraging schemes. Some of those with whom I work are apt to promote schemes which are attractive and interesting. There is no holdback of this particular kind.

Mr. Callaghan: Is there positive encouragement?

Mr. Amery: Not only is there positive encouragement, but very often it is not we in the Office who hesitate to authorise schemes for financial reasons. Very often it is the Colonial Government which, conscious of the difficulties on the spot, hesitate because of the recurrent charges. It is not by any means that London is the only one which is too cautious in its approach. It is very often, quite naturally and rightly, the Colonial Government on the spot.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is absolutely no obstacle on our part to the full expenditure of the sums voted and we would like to see it because it helps not only the national interest in terms of production—a point which the hon. Member raised earlier himself—but also helps us to discharge our duty in this matter to our fellow subjects in the Colonies where we would like to see this go to the maximum extent that we can.
To help the hon. Member, I tried to go a stage beyond that and foreshadowed that it might be possible—this is not something on which I can now give a definite commitment—over the four years to spend a great deal of the money which is laid down for a quinquennial period, since there is a tradition of bringing in a new Bill a year before the expiry of the old Bill and it would be quite easy to operate the overlap provision in a constructive sense.

Question put, That "sixty-four" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 162. Noes 135.

Division No 77.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gibson-Watt, D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Altken, W. T.
Glyn, Col. Richard H
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimond, J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Atkins, H. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborne, C.


Batsford, Brian
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)
Page, R. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Partridge, E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peel, W. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pott, H. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A
Hirst, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bingham, R. M.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Holt, A. F.
Profumo, J. D.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hornby, R. P.
Rawlinson, Peter


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Hon. Granville (St. Ives)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bryan, P.
Hyde, Montgomery
Roper, Sir Harold


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Russell, R. S.


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, R. C.


Cooke, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shepherd, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spelr, R. M.


Courtney Cdr. Anthony
Joseph, Sir Keith
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kershaw, J. A.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kimball, M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dance, J. C. G.
Lambton, Viscount
Temple, John M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


de Ferranti, Basil
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Vane, W. M. F.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Vickers, Miss Joan


du Cann, E. D. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Longden, Gilbert
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Loveys, Walter H.
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas, P. B.(Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Webster, David


Fell, A.
McAdden, S. J.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Finlay, Graeme
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gammans, Lady
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)



Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Coillck, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Anthony


Awbery, S. S.
Cronin, J. D.
Grey, C. F.


Benson, Sir George
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Boyd, T. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hunter, A. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Champion, A. J
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Chapman, W. D.
Foot, D. M.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Forman, J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Cliffe, Michael
Eraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)




Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Moss, R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Key, Rt. Hon. G. w.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Lawson, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Oram, A. E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Llndgren, G. S.
Owen, w. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Mabon, Dr. J Dickson
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Parkin, B. T.
Thornton, E.


McCann, J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Tomney, F.


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Viant, S. P.


MacDermot, Niall
Prentice, R. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Mclnnes, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)
Weitzman, D.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McLeavy, Frank
Randall, H. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rankin, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Redhead, E. C.
White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mellish, R. J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woof, R. E.


Moody, A. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Zilliacus, K.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington, A. M.



Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S,)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mort, D. L.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Mr. John Taylor and




Mr. J. T. Price.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(LOANS FOR APPROVED COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES.)

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end to insert:
having regard to the rates of interest applicable at the time for loans to local authorities in the United Kingdom by the Public Works Loan Board".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed with this the next three Amendments, in page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13 in line 12, leave out from "fixed" to end of line 13 and insert:
according to the purposes for which the loan is required",
and in line 13, at end insert:
so as to take account of the general economic situation existing at the time in the territory".

Mrs. Castle: I speak on this group of Amendments with all the more optimism in view of the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in reply to the Amendment on the previous Clause. The hon. Gentleman seems to be realising that we on this side of the Committee feel very strongly that this Clause is one of the most important parts of the Bill and as it stands is quite unsatisfactory, particularly when taken with the White Paper on the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and the interpretation which it puts on the terms on which the loans are to be made.
The purpose of the four Amendments is to challenge the onerous terms under

which, according to the Clause, this type of Exchequer loan is to be made. We, of course, welcome the principle of supplementing private loans raised on the London market with the issue of Exchequer loans. We feel that it is a valuable step forward for the Government to realise that the Colonial Territories would benefit by having loans raised with Government credit behind them, but surely the purpose of having Exchequer loans is that the terms should be easier for the borrowing Governments and not worse than those which private enterprise would give.
7.30 p.m.
We have, not so much in the terms of the Bill as in the interpretation put on this Clause in the White Paper, the revelation that the Government are doing two things at the same time. On the one hand, they are recognising the need for Government help to supplement private loans and, on the other hand, they are making the terms less attractive than the existing facilities on the London market. This is leading us into a ridiculous situation. The hint dropped by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies shows that the Government realise that their case on this will not bear examination.
The aim of the Exchequer loans should be to close the gap in colonial finances which private loans have failed to do. Therefore, they should be issued on infinitely more attractive terms. It is our view on this side of the Committee that development capital for colonial and under-developed territories should carry specially low rates of interest. They should not be merely no more onerous


than the terms on the London market but they should command specially arranged low rates of interest. We make this point not only in our colonial document, "Economic Aid", but also in our other policy document, "Plan for Progress" where we state:
Whatever the prevailing level of market rates, there is a case for financing some types of investment at specially favourable rates of interest which reflect the Government's power to borrow.
We put high in the list of that kind of investment development capital for Colonies and under-developed countries.
What do the Government propose? I repeat, not so much the Bill itself—and that places us in a difficulty because this Clause merely leaves to the Secretary of State the fixing of the terms of the loan—but the White Paper makes it clear that the proposal is, first, that the Secretary of State will expect all Colonial Territories wishing to take advantage of these loans to look first to the London market and to regard the Exchequer in this context as a lender of last resort. Those were the Colonial Secretary's own words during the Second Reading debate.
Secondly, the White Paper tells us that the rate of interest which will be charged on the Exchequer loans will be 1¼ per cent. above the rate at which the Government provides loans for a number of public corporations. It has been estimated in The Times and elsewhere, and not challenged by the Government, that this should work out at about 5¾ per cent. Thirdly, the White Paper states specially that the loans will be repayable by
…equated annual instalments of principal and interest combined.
This will mean a very heavy burden on the borrower. In fact the White Paper admits that
…the annual cost to the borrower of servicing an Exchequer loan is likely to be above the annual cost of servicing a market loan.
So, I repeat, far from the Government adopting the point of view that they should put their credit behind the Colonial Territories to enable them to borrow at specially favourable terms, Government Exchequer loans will work out at a heavier annual cost of servicing than do private loans.
This is to render nugatory the value of the loans and we are at a loss to understand why it should be suggested, in view of the evidence produced in the earlier part of this debate, that they will begin to meet the needs of Colonial Governments. Indeed, there are many precedents for establishing that the Government themselves recommend that in certain circumstances Colonial Territories should not only borrow at specially easy rates of interest but should be given interest-free loans. Under the 1955 Act there was the example of Jamaica, for instance, which was given an interest-free loan of £1 million to enable her to establish a banana price stabilisation fund. There has been an even more recent example of interest-free loans being given to a Colonial Government, namely, Kenya.
The Minister of Finance for Kenya, Mr. Vasey, has announced recently that Kenya is to draw in 1959–60 a last instalment of aid from this country towards the cost of the emergency there, and the last annual payment will amount to £1,600,000. Mr. Vasey has pointed out that £800,000 of that will be grant and £800,000 interest-free loan. He also points out that in the period of the emergency ending March, 1960, Kenya will have been given, in addition to a grant of £25 million, an interest-free loan of over £6 million.
If it is right to make an interest-free loan to enable that Colonial Territory to deal with an emergency which has arisen from political unrest, surely it is all the more expedient to make interest-free loans to deal with the economic situation which may be helping to create the political unrest? What is good for Kenya is good for all the other Colonial Territories which are in the list of those needing our aid. It is intolerable that we should, on the one hand, recognise that many colonial Governments are facing acute financial crises and large budget deficits and, on the other hand, proclaim it as an act of policy that the Government propose to close that gap and enable them to meet their deficiencies by Exchequer loans which will actually increase the burden upon them. This is merely to postpone the solution of their difficulties and not to provide the solution.
It is not good enough as a solution of the problem we face. Even the Russians can do better than this. They have just made a loan to Iraq of £49 million at a rate of 2½ per cent., in addition to grants of free technical assistance for mineral surveys, for expert advice on industrial development, on irrigation surveys, road networks and the rest. We cannot begin to solve our colonial problem if we are thinking in terms of financial mechanisms which are even more onerous than the purely commercial terms of the London market loans.
In the Second Reading debate the Colonial Secretary made the point that colonial Governments have relied on external borrowings to meet the gap between their needs and their resources, plus colonial development and welfare grants. He also recognised, as did the Under-Secretary of State this afternoon, that the increased burden of recurrent charges which has to be met on the capital work that has already been carried out, further restricts the ability of colonial Governments to provide capital sums from their own resources. It is because colonial Governments are at this moment having to balance budgets which would be unbalanced by the weight of those recurrent charges and the fall in the revenue from their primary products because of the fall in commodity prices, that they are having to borrow on terms proposed in the White Paper.
In fact, what we are expecting colonial Governments to do is to balance tomorrow's budgets by mortgaging the budgets of subsequent years. Not only have those Governments to face the high rates of interest imposed by the Government but they have to face the provision that loans are to be repaid in equated annual instalments of principal and interest.
When we raised on the Second Reading this question of repayment the Under-Secretary of State said, "Oh, but this is quite a common practice", and that in fact the Labour Party had introduced it in relation to the Colonial Development Corporation. Of course, the terms of the loans for the Colonial Development Corporation were slightly different from that. Those loans were granted with a seven-year moratorium on repay-

ment as a start, and the repayment of principal started only in the eighth year.
This is the same principle as applies to the Kenya loan to which I have referred. This is a loan to help Kenya to meet the cost of her emergency. This loan is not only interest-free but it has an eight-year moratorium on capital repayments, as far as we were able to understand from the White Paper. We should like detailed enlightenment on this point.
There appears to be no such moratorium proposed in loans under the Bill. The territories which in their desperation are having to borrow this money, will be faced immediately with the first annual instalment of repayment of principal, plus a crippling rate of interest. It is, therefore, not accurate to say that these loans will in any way close the gap.
The Under-Secretary of State knows perfectly well that many of these colonial Governments are managing to get by financially at the moment only as a result of short-term advances. They have to draw simply to close an urgent budgetary gap. It is because of the necessities of that situation that the Government are introducing Exchequer loans, yet the terms under which the Government are coming to their aid and supplementing the facilities on the London market are such as merely to postpone and exacerbate the crisis which the loans are supposed to meet.
7.45 p.m.
The Colonial Secretary made this clear in the Second Reading debate when he pointed out that for the next five years colonial Governments must be able to rely on a basic minimum of external loan finance. He indicated that colonial budgets could be balanced only by the help of external loans and that the internal resources of the territories would be inadequate. Grants under the colonial development and welfare scheme will also be inadequate. The Colonial Secretary himself is on record as saying that the gap in the development budgets for the next five years can be closed only by external loan finance.
What is the purpose of these loans, then, if not even to enable colonial Governments to expand their ideas of development and expand their development programmes to close the gap in the


existing development plans? Therefore, unless these development plans are actually to be cut, the territories have to borrow this money. The only two places where they can borrow under the Government's proposals are the London money market, in competition with all the industries in this country and outside, and under intense competition at a time of inflation; or by Exchequer loans which, on the Government's own admission, will place a heavier annual financial burden upon the borrowing Governments.
This is the situation, after all our talk of encouraging colonial development, all the suggestions made by the Under-Secretary of State earlier, and the impression that he gave that the Government are anxious to meet all the development plans that colonial Government cared to put forward, that money was no object and that it was simply a question of the internal possibilities of each Colonial Territory. In this provision we have a situation which can lead, unless the Bill is amended, to the reduction of the development plans, because the cost of closing the gap by these means will be too heavy for Colonial Territories to face.
The Government's excuse, given when we raised these questions in the Second Reading debate, was, "If we made Exchequer loans on terms that all colonial Governments could afford, everybody would want Exchequer loans and there would be a run upon them". The Government said that this would be very unfortunate. It was desirable to encourage colonial Governments to go to the London market in preparation for their period of independence. It would help them to establish their credit-worthiness.
I find it difficult to believe that the Under-Secretary of State advanced that argument with any seriousness. What establishes the credit-worthiness of a Government is surely their ability to repay. We do not establish credit-worthiness by compelling them to accept financial burdens which are so crushing that they must either cut their development programmes or default. It is economic and welfare development alone which will establish the credit-worthiness of these Governments and while I hesitate to use the words "piece of hypocrisy", it must appear to be a piece of hypocrisy to advance an argument like that to Govern-

ments which are struggling with such financial difficulties.
The Under-Secretary also made the point that rates of interest will not always be at the tremendous height they are now, and that conditions may change again. Indeed, they may. We may have a Labour Government, and we shall not have this inflationary situation and its very dear money concomitant. The point is that it is just at the time when these Governments will most need the Exchequer help that the rates of interest will be most high, because of the pressure on the money market.
The Under-Secretary said on Second Reading that he had often thought that there was a case for preferential loans, and that he had made various speeches about them. I hope we shall hear that sort of speech from him tonight. In making that speech, he said that there was a case for preferential loans, but he thought not in this context. Will he please explain why not in this context? Surely, this is the context of all contexts in which preferential loans are justified? I challenge him to say, if not now and in this context, when and in what context?
We have the evidence tonight of the urgent need of the Colonial Territories, and we are not going to help the colonial Governments by saying to them, in the first place, "Go to the London market to close the gap," and by repeating time after time, as is done in the White Paper, that only when they have been to the London market and have been decisively rejected, not only in London but everywhere else, only when they are desperate, can they come to us as a last resort, and that then we will see that the terms are financially more onerous than they would have got from the London market, because, otherwise, our sanctions would not work.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary that what is holding up, to some extent, the development plans of these territories is, as he rightly said earlier, the burden of recurrent charges. We cannot close that gap by loans on these sort of terms. The way to do it, as my hon. Friend said, is rather to see that we allow colonial development and welfare grants to be made in order to meet some of these recurrent charges, but certainly we shall not get the colonial Governments to carry the burden of these recurrent charges with


a Bill such as this, and with the sort of rates of interest involved if the colonial Governments have to borrow under the terms of this Bill.
Therefore, we press these Amendments with all seriousness, and we hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to announce a really substantial concession here tonight. I repeat that, in our view, what is needed is that Government credit should be used to give the Colonial Territories rates of interest far more in the range of 2 or 2½ per cent. We also want to know whether these new provisions will mean that in future it will no longer be possible for territories to borrow on an interest-free basis, as Jamaica has done in the past. Will this rule out the kind of provision which has already been made, because there is a developing area in the Colonial Territories in which interest-free or very cheap loans are needed.
Let me give one example. The development of co-operative marketing inside the Colonies is one of the most important and hopeful developments on the economic side. Co-operative marketing organisations in these territories today have an annual turn-over of something like £100 million. If this is to be developed, with all its potentialities for the African producer, the farmer, the peasant absolutely on the bottom rung of the economic ladder in these territories, what is needed is the establishment of co-operative banks. If that is to be done, such banks must be provided with cheap initial working capital so that they can make short-term advances to member cooperatives against the realisation of their crops during the hiatus that comes before harvest time.
That is the basis of co-operative finance, and the Colonies urgently need lifeblood of this kind being pumped into them. That has to be done through cheap or interest-free loans. These provisions will only make the position worse.

Mr. John Tilney: I have followed with interest the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and I think that her argument is a little specious. So far as I can understand, she is arguing that artificially low interest rates are the only way of helping the Colonial Territories. Is not that really the argument of the old days of austerity in this country,

when goods were in short supply, as, indeed, capital is in short supply all over the world today? If the hon. Lady accepts that argument, she must accept the rest that goes with it.
There is a very strong argument in favour of helping the underdeveloped territories of the Commonwealth, but I personally would much rather see some form of tax concession to private enterprise. The hon. Lady was very sceptical about private enterprise, and suggested co-operative banks. She is probably ignorant of the very large sums which have been advanced to farmers in West Africa by private enterprise today, which cannot be repaid for one, two or three years, at extremely low rates of interest, and frequently at a loss.
I must declare an interest as a director of a West African firm, but I can assure the hon. Lady that very large sums have been advanced, certainly to farmers in West Africa, over many decades. I am not saying that more could not be done, but I wish the hon. Lady would not continue to decry private enterprise completely. Surely, a loan, if it is to be made properly, should bear its market rate of interest, depending on the credit-worthiness of whatever territory may be concerned.
The hon. Lady referred to that creditworthiness, and also mentioned the great gap in development plans which there might be if money were not forthcoming. Of course, many development plans in many of our territories should be very much larger, but capital is in very short supply, and the only proper way of allocating that capital, in my view, is to see that it is properly used. It will only be properly used if the territories which receive that money spend it wisely.
Not always has the money which these territories themselves earned has been wisely invested. The hon. Lady referred to a 2½per cent. rate of interest. It is a pity that, during the time of the Labour Administration, many of the funds that accrued to the raw material producing territories were invested, through the Crown Agents, in 2½per cent. Treasury Bonds—the so-called "Daltons", which are now halved in value. Surely it is essential that money should be properly allocated, and that these territories should learn to finance themselves in an able


way, and not dissipate the resources that they may be given.
We are discussing loans which ultimately will be given by the Government but raised from the taxpayer. Therefore, it is surely important, whatever the territory that is granted a loan, that it should have behaved properly to the people who have helped develop it in the past. I refer to one or two countries in West Africa which have forgotten the civil servants who were engaged in helping their development in past decades.
8.0 p.m.
Nigeria and Sierra Leone have not treated their civil servants in the same way as many territories, such as Malaya or even East Africa. Those civil servants have no one to speak for them. They have only a few votes scattered up and down the country and they have no "lobby". It is surely important, if we are to give British taxpayers' money, or to lend it, to territories, to bear in mind those who have looked after their former servants well. I know the difficulties which both Nigeria and Sierra Leone have had to face in the past, but if we can bear in mind, when we make advances which I hope will be made, that some territories have treated our people better than others, we shall have the helpers of the future for development which we all want to see.
I welcome this new development of loans, but I urge the Under-Secretary not to give way to the persuasions of the hon. Lady.

Mr. Philips Price: Our Amendments are aimed at introducing some elasticity into the financing of projects for colonial development. We think that the Minister should have power to finance at more favourable rates those enterprises which are likely to take longer to mature.
All these enterprises are different in their nature and in their rate of maturity. For instance, some investments would get fairly quick returns, such as those in development of roads, hydro-electric schemes, and harbours. I should not think it necessary to advance money to a Colonial Territory which was not in any serious difficulty for enterprise of that kind to be granted at particularly low rates. On the other hand, most of the development in Africa, at least that con-

cerning land tenure, agriculture and forestry, is a long-term affair. Countries which are not strong in finance should have special rates for that kind of development. We do not think it fair to expect them to make their development dependent on the vagaries of the London money market.
Only in the autumn of the year before last we had a 7 per cent. Bank Rate and a state of affairs in which borrowing generally was extremely difficult. It is absolutely vital for long-term development that investment of the kind to which I have referred should be insulated against the vagaries of the money market, which would not so seriously affect enterprises of a quicker maturing nature. Particularly, welfare investment in education, building of universities and technical colleges, is of a kind involving enterprises which do not mature quickly and, when they do, they do not take a directly economic form.
That development is absolutely vital for underdeveloped countries, because it is no use investing in schemes unless there are people to run them when they have been provided. Technicians and engineers of all kinds are needed. We must give the Africans the opportunity to take on those jobs, but that takes years. All these Colonial Territories require special financial assistance. It is not good enough to say that they must rely mainly on the London money market.
When I was in Kenya, a few years ago, I saw interesting forestry development in the Mau forest and elsewhere. Such developments will all take time, but eventually they will bring about an improvement in an area threatened by erosion. One is particularly concerned with questions of agriculture and land tenure. For instance, in the Elgeyo and the Kiptagish tribes, in Western Kenya, I saw developments in farming with modern machinery. They had been taken out of the old tribal areas where no real development in cultivation was in the least degree possible so long as they were dependent on the old tribal laws and customs.
The interesting Swynnerton Report refers, on page 55, to the great need for improvement in developing credit for agriculture. I grant that a lot of this can be done by private enterprise, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waventree (Mr. Tilney) pointed out, but I do not think that private enterprise can, in all cases, be sufficient. Nor, even, can co-operative


banks be sufficient without assistance from Government loans at favourable rates of interest. It is extremely important that land banks should be formed, and banks which can finance the African farmer to buy modern machinery.
When he has his farm the African farmer has cut out the old tribal customs and wants machinery. In the two areas to which I have referred I saw farms which would do credit to any good farmer in this country, or in America. All this requires capital and we cannot expect quick returns without assistance. The African farmers need special assistance in the form of low rates of interest.
It will not do to leave it entirely to private enterprise. A country like Kenya can find opportunities both for public and private enterprise. I suppose that is true of other territories which I have not had an opportunity of seeing. This is the kind of thing we have in mind in proposing these Amendments. We ought to insulate long-term investment for economic and social welfare from the vagaries of the London money market. I am not saying that it is not important for the development of these countries, but by itself it is not enough. We ought to have a much more flexible policy in dealing with these development problems.

Mr. Oram: My hon. Friends have made an outstanding case for favourable rates of interest in general. I wish to call the attention of the Committee particularly to the last of the Amendments which we are considering now. It seeks to put into the Bill the requirement that the terms of the loans shall be variable according to the economic circumstances of the borrowing country.
As it stands, the subsection to which the Amendments refer enables changes to be made in the terms, but does not lay down any guidance or any conditions according to which those changes are to be made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, it is left entirely to the Secretary of State. One suspects that what is intended in the subsection is that changes shall be made only in relation to alterations in the money market. What we think is very necessary is not only that the terms should be favourable, but that they should also be capable of being made more favourable when the borrowing country falls upon bad times.
These Colonial Territories, for two very good reasons to which I shall come shortly, are only too liable to fall upon bad times very suddenly. As was emphasised in an earlier debate, their economies sometimes depend very much on one, two, three or four primary commodities for their export earnings. As was also emphasised, the prices of these primary commodities are subject, and have over the decades been subject, to violent fluctuations. As a consequence of the dependability of the territories on a few commodities and the liability of vast fluctuations in the export earnings of their commodities, these territories are especially vulnerable.
May I give one or two brief examples? Almost 100 per cent. of Gambia's exports is in ground nuts. Almost 100 per cent. of the exports of Mauritius is accounted for by sugar. Coffee and cotton represent together 85 per cent. of the total exports of Uganda. The same is true in varying degrees of practically all the Colonial Territories with which we are dealing. I will not weary the Committee with the prices of these commodities. I think that it is sufficiently well known that their prices can change quickly from one year to another.
May I give but one example which I think is especially striking? In 1954 and 1955 the quantity of coffee exported by Tanganyika was almost exactly the same. In 1954 the exports of coffee earned for Tanganyika £10 million, but in 1955 almost the same quantity of exports earned just under £7 million. That is very good evidence that this type of economy is liable to run into difficulties at very short notice.
For that reason, we feel that the terms upon which these loans are granted should be flexible and it should be possible to relax the interest payments at a time of crisis in order to help the territories out of any difficulties into which they might run at any moment.
8.15 p.m.
I wish finally to make a comparison with a loan in which we were the borrowers. It is not unknown for international loans to be flexible in the way that I have suggested and the way that our Amendments suggest. Incidentally, the American loans were at 2 per cent. rather than at the money market rates suggested for these loans but, leaving that aside, the other terms of the American


loan provided that, if this country ran into particularly difficult times, there was the possibility of suspending the repayments of interest. Quite recently, immediately following the Suez episode, this Government were only too eager to seize that opportunity in order to get themselves partly out of the difficulty which they had themselves created. There was no repayment of interest on the American loans either in 1956 or 1957.
Is it right that we as borrowers should not only negotiate, but eagerly seize upon these waiver clauses, unless as lenders we are prepared to do to others something that is equally to their advantage if they run into particularly difficult circumstances? That is why the group of Amendments is intended to enable the borrowing Colonial Territories to have terms allotted to them which are comparable with their varying economic circumstances over the years.

Sir L. Plummer: I want to address myself to the Amendment standing in my name, in page 2, to leave out lines 12 and 13.
The Under-Secretary will be aware that what I seek to do is to delete from the Clause the words
and different terms may be fixed for portions of the loan issued at different times.
That is not mandatory. The word "may" makes it clear that considerable latitude is allowed to the Secretary of State, but nevertheless I am concerned with the implications that exist if the words remain. Any major development scheme in a Colonial Territory seeking a loan has to be phased.
Let me give an example. Suppose that a colonial country decides that it will build a cement works, an electricity generating and distributing plant, or some roads. Despite what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that the availability of technicians is much greater today than it was a few years ago—I am still agreeing to a very large extent with what he said—the public works departments of Colonial Territories are, on the whole, hard put to it to get on with the job they have in hand. The development of a scheme large enough for them to ask for loans through the C.D. and W. funds would put quite a strain on them, with the result that they would have to phase the work. It would be impossible

for them to undertake in a short period of time—they may not be able to undertake it in the five-year period—the completion of the task for which they sought the loan.
They might build the works, but they might not be ready to put in the generators and dynamos. When they come to consider the economic liability of the scheme, they have to cost it. If they can go to the Government and ask for a loan to build the electricity works, the cement works or the roads and they know for sure how much it will cost them from the beginning of the operation to its completion, they can estimate carefully and properly. They then have some measure of control over the burden of recurrent charges, of which we have heard so much today. On the other hand, if they have to ask for a loan in instalments, as it were, not knowing from instalment to instalment what rate of interest they will have to pay, it is quite impossible for them to assess what the recurrent charge will be, or even to make a fair assessment of the ultimate cost of the product to the consumer.
It could be argued, I suppose, that they could ask for the whole sum even though they could not complete the project in one or two years. They would not want to do that, of course, because they would then be paying interest on a loan most of which they could not use and would, therefore, be adding to the burden of their recurrent charges.
Would it not be better, therefore, to consider that when a colonial country asks for a loan for a development which the Colonial Secretary approves but which will take rather a long time to complete, the borrower should be assured that the sum required, and agreed, shall be lent at a flat rate of interest from the beginning to the end of the operation? There would be no confusion or dubiety in their minds as to what the total interest would be. The Government would say, "We quite recognise your position. We understand that you will want this money in the future and that it would be wrong and wasteful for you to have it all at once. Nevertheless, we will make the loan at a fixed rate of interest for the whole purpose of the project."
I have tried to make the point as clear as I can to the Under-Secretary, and he has once or twice given an indication that


he has understood what I have said. Therefore, when he replies, I hope that he will bear in mind that my effort is to reduce this burden of recurrent charges, which I think might be heavier if the lines I seek to delete are left in the Bill.

Mr. R. Edwards: This series of Amendments is really a plea for flexible loans. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) said that all we were doing was to suggest that private loans should be discarded. We are doing no such thing. We know that private loans, loans on the London market, Government loans—a whole variety of loans—are required for the underdeveloped territories, and it is for those areas to make their own decision according to their requirements—

Mr. Tilney: What I was trying to make clear was that the supply of capital is limited. If we offer it at an unduly low price we will have to ration it, and it will be very difficult to say which Colonial Territory ought to get the capital.

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that there is a lot of money available. The N.A.T.O. Powers spend £40,000 million a year on defence, and we on this side think that if the purse can be opened wide for defence purposes it should be opened wide for the purposes of constructive peace. It will prevent war in the future, and, certainly, class war in some of the underdeveloped areas. I do not accept that there is this great shortage of capital, but that is not the point here.
We ask for more flexibility. The economy of the territories concerned should be considered. In some, it depends on a single crop or a single commodity, such as rubber, tin, rice, iron ore, cocoa or, as in Sierra Leone, diamonds. If, in circumstances over which those countries have no control, the prices of those products or foodstuffs collapse, the living standards of these poor people are completely shattered.
All we suggest is that some consideration be given to the economies of these countries and to situations created by world crises. Our imports of foodstuffs and raw materials last year were £260 million less than in the previous year, which meant that that much less went into the main primary producing countries, among which are the Colonial Terri-

tories whose needs and difficulties we are now discussing.
It is quite easy to get private loans for the development of diamond digging. If one has a great mountain of iron ore that can be exploited with little capital investment, and it is easy to get the ore to the European markets, one can find plenty of capital, though it may well be that such capital investment, while being immediately profitable, will unbalance a country's economy in the long run.
In the Colonial Territories the real need is for capital for long-term agricultural development that may not be immediately profitable. Sierra Leone used to export rice, but now imports it. It used to export great quantities of palm oil. The kernels are still exported, but palm oil is imported to feed the people. Co-operative rice farming is now developing there and has been able, with a very small but strategic capital investment, to reclaim thousands of acres of swamp land which, hitherto, have grown nothing but reeds and tall grass.
Surely long-term development would be of immeasurable value to the people of Sierra Leone and to the Commonwealth because not merely does it give the people security and improve living standards, but it increases their consuming power and creates a demand for the products which we in this country manufacture. Apart from that, it helps them to balance their own economy.
8.30 p.m.
Last year, the economy of Sierra Leone was down by £10 million, mainly due to the fact that instead of growing its own food and rice and producing its own palm oil it was spending its currency in importing these products. Would it not be much better to have some flexibility in the Colonial Office which would enable small or relatively small loans to be made to co-operative rice farmers to allow them to buy tractors and mechanical equipment for the swamplands in order to increase their rice production? Would it not be much better to help them to establish their own credit societies? Cocoa, coffee and rice farmers need credit for only nine months. If they get credit for nine months, they will be able to harvest their crops and to repay the money.


There have been no bad debts in Sierra Leone.
The importance of the development of co-operative farming production and credit societies, which I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) mentioned, is that this is how the people and small farmers want to develop. In 1950, there were only 29 co-operative societies in Sierra Leone, but last year there were 313, 180 being producer societies. This is a vitally important point, because it proves that this is the natural way in which the people want to develop.
In considering the problems of colonial development, it is important that there should be sufficient flexibility at the Colonial Office so that funds for, say, a co-operative college, more co-operative registrars and advisers, more credit for mechanising and building mills for squeezing the oil out of the palms, or stores for cocoa and coffee are available. This kind of development does not require vast sums of money, yet it can transform politically the whole landscape of these important territories, because in developing along these lines they are also developing their own democracy. They are running their own little farms, villages, credit societies, banks and transport themselves and are learning from practical experience how to run their own institutions as a community. That is the first basic training in democratic practices.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will listen to the pleas made from this side for more flexibility so that loans for the underdeveloped territories through private investment, the London market, the Government, and particularly through new arrangements that will provide some strategic loans at very low interest rates, are made available.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I want to make only one point. I have a great deal of sympathy with the plea put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that the suggestion of hon. Members opposite is not practical in this form.
Much has been made by hon. Members opposite of the difficulties into which some Colonies get from time to time when

their economy is in an awkward state. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) cited Colonies which depend on only one or perhaps two crops, and when economic times are hard they cannot repay loans or pay interest on them. What do the Government propose to do to prevent that kind of thing happening?
In winding up the debate on the last Amendment, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned that the best way to help towards providing capital for the Colonial Territories was by encouraging the greatest possible amount of inter-Commonwealth trade.
This is a favourite topic of mine. What are we going to do to encourage more inter-Commonwealth trade? I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee would want to see this done. It is the best way to prevent a crisis occurring in Colonial Territories, and to prevent a huge surplus of crops becoming a burden. It is our duty, by legislative means if possible, to encourage people in this country to buy produce from the Colonial Territories rather than from foreign countries. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make some reference to this topic and outline what can be done to ensure that colonial crops and produce of all kinds are bought by this country. We should do everything possible to help them.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I should like briefly to support the series of Amendments designed to give the Treasury and the Exchequer greater flexibility in regard to loans proffered under this Bill. If the Government are prepared to allow Exchequer loans only on the terms described in the White Paper, a good deal of the Government's financial proposals are not much more than a window-dressing.
In colonial matters, as in home affairs, unless we receive a more rational explanation than we obtained in the Second Reading, it appears that the Government have taken a definite political and philosophical decision to drive as much business as is possible to the London market and thereby to increase its profits. If that really is the case—and I shall be glad to hear that it is not—it will cause a great deal of cynicism in the Colonies about our alleged good intentions. That was the point that I thought the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney)


overlooked in the argument he put before the Committee.
Why is it that the Government have taken the decision that Exchequer loans will be available only if there is evidence that the loan cannot be obtained in the City? Secondly, if those criteria are necessary, why have the Government made the conditions described in page 10 of the White Paper so much more unattractive and expensive, thereby adding to the financial burden of developing the territories? I sometimes wonder whether the acute financial difficulties of the Colonies that arise are appreciated by the Government. I know that they know the totals of the deficiencies in the annual budgets. I am not suggesting they do not, but I wonder whether they realise what cash shortage so often means in terms of human happiness and progress.
I want to give one example before I sit down. This does not affect a whole territory, but just one growing and expanding town with great potential. Having had the opportunity of going to Dar-es-Salaam, I am sure that those who knew the town will agree that that is the correct description of it. Recently, the trade union took a pay claim to arbitration. Very much to its surprise, it succeeded, but as a result I heard some very disquieting rumours. It was said that because the claim succeeded 200 people were to be dismissed. On 12th February, I put a Question to the Under-Secretary, who replied:
I understand that a recent arbitration award will increase the Municipal Councirs expenditure by over £13,000"—
which does not seem a very large sum—
and this has led to some reorganisation of the services provided by the Council. While essential services are being maintained a reduction in others has compelled the Council to dismiss 73 men, and a further 65 will be dismissed in April…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 229–30.]
What an astonishing conclusion to a successful arbitration claim! One hundred and thirty-eight out of work. This action may be due either to negligence or to the profligate nature of the city council. I do not know. However, I inquired whether the money could be advanced, and I was told that there was no way in which this sum could be made good within the territory. Accordingly, the men are being dismissed. We must think of this decision in terms of African morale, their belief in the real value of

that arbitration principle and in trade unionism. The lack of such a small sum —£13,000—would sow seeds of unrest and doubt which would do untold harm to belief in constitutional processes. This situation has arisen because of the present inflexible arrangements. That is the sort of example which, multiplied a thousand times, can do infinite damage to the possibilities of the Commonwealth, and I hope that the Government will feel that their present schemes are too inflexible and that there is much to be said for the principle behind the Amendment.

Mr. J. Johnson: I should like to ask a question which I asked in the Second Reading debate, and to which I did not receive an answer. I have put my name to an Amendment concerning the provision of Government loans to the Colonies on the same basis as that upon which Governments of both complexions made loans, through the Public Works Loan Board, to local authorities. On 2nd March 1 said that the City of London moneylenders, which is what the banks technically are, were lending money to the territories at a rate half of 1 per cent. over that operating in the money market. In reply, the Colonial Secretary said:
That will be dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State at the end of the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 130.]
During the course of the debate I had asked why the poor, non-viable Territories had to pay a rate of 6 per cent., 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. for their money in the market in order to build their schools and hospitals. When the Under-Secretary wound up the debate, I intervened and said:
…would not the hon. Gentleman accept the view that, in education, perhaps, there is a place for a special fund for that specific social service in a Colony?
The Under-Secretary of State said:
That is not what development and welfare grants are supposed to meet. This is in addition to the grant. The grant is supposed to meet a certain area of the requirements of the Colonies. The loans are for a requirement over and above that. It is an additional requirement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 159.]
I do not understand how the Minister can say that the first £250,000 is for education and that the next £1 million or so for education is in a separate category. I do not see why there should


be a grant for the first amount and then, for additional amounts, which form the solid Vote for the Colony, they should have to go to the London money market for dear money.
I plead for a special fund, chest or kitty, earmarked for this special social service. We have talked almost ad nauseam about the needs of the various Colonies, and have said over and over again that we are giving them insufficient money, especially in respect of their day-by-day needs. It is absolutely vital that we should educate the people, put them into hospital when they are ill, and build houses for them.
The amounts that we have been spending are completely inadequate, and we all agree that we must spend more if we can. Even though the amount we are spending has increased we still charge these poor Colonies heavy sums on the open market. I am amazed that money required for social purposes should be placed in the same category as money borrowed for mining in a Colony. Diamond mining in Tanganyika, or copper mining in Northern Rhodesia, or the production of oil from Nigeria, are activities which need capital sums for investment and which yield short-term dividends for the Colony. They are in a completely different category from the long-term, steady, slogging, day-by-day social needs of the populations of these dependent territories.
I ask the Minister to make a distinction between these two fields of development—on the one hand, the quick-yielding sharp investment for metals, and the other type of investment, which often does not yield dividends at all except in the invisible benefits of an educated, technically-equipped people who are able to look after their own affairs if and when we leave them to look after themselves. I do not understand why the Minister cannot see as clearly as I the difference between these two spheres of economic and social activity in the oversea territories.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Amery: Let me deal at once with the two points raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) in connection with our last debate. I apologise that in the pressure against the clock, I did not fulfil the undertaking of my

right hon. Friend to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. J. Johnson: I accept that.

Mr. Amery: I am sorry I overlooked it. In a sense, however, it is as well for the hon. Member's reputation that I did, because if I understood the passage rightly, he slightly misjudged his homework. The figure is not one-half, but one-quarter, of 1 per cent. over the market rate.

Mr. Johnson: Surely, the Minister will not slay me because of one-quarter of I per cent., particularly in the dear money market which the Government are inflicting upon us. Surely, one-quarter of 1 per cent. will not break my reputation.

Mr. Amery: I am not making a great point of it, but the hon. Member spoke at some length on the matter. He flayed us for having this heavy rate of one-half of 1 per cent. and then exacted an undertaking that we would reply to his statement about this one-half of 1 per cent. I was merely saying that it was, perhaps, unwise for the hon. Member to raise the matter again as the difference was, not one-half, but one-quarter, of 1 per cent.
Concerning the hon. Member's second point, perhaps I did not speak with sufficient clarity. If, however, the hon. Member looks carefully at the sense of what I said, he will see that the word "not" should not have been included. I was talking about loans and the hon. Member interrupted me and asked whether education as a social service should not have its place. What I intended to say, although it is reported the other way, is
That is what development and welfare grants are supposed to meet. This"—
that is, the loan provision—
is in addition to the grant. The grant is supposed to meet a certain area of the requirements of the Colonies. The loans are for a requirement over and above that.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept my explanation.

Mr. Johnson: I accept the correction here and now.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said that he doubted whether we fully appreciated the financial difficulty of the Colonies. Let me assure him that that


is the absolute opposite of the position. It is because, in the period when commodity prices have fallen, we have become increasingly aware of the difficulties of the Colonies that we have come forward with this proposal.
I appreciate the motives which have led those who have spoken from the party opposite to criticise the provisions that we have made. They might, however, have shown a little more understanding of the fact that this is a fairly important innovation. Even if it does not approach the standards of perfection which hon. Members have in their minds, the offer of £100 million of money available for loan finance, which is very nearly as much as the total for grant, over the next five years is something which has never been done before and it is on a considerable scale.
If I understood aright the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others of her hon. Friends who have spoken, their principal conception was that these Exchequer loans should be more, and not less, attractive than the market loans and that they should be tailored to some extent to the particular purpose to which they were to be applied.
It is very important in tackling this problem that we should distinguish between grants and loans. The object, in our view, is to make money available by grant for a wide range of development and welfare schemes, and more particularly for those development and Welfare schemes which are unlikely to produce a large profit themselves. The object of the Exchequer loan is over and above that requirement, and it is a requirement for which hitherto more money has been made available than could be spent. The object of these Exchequer loans is over and above the development and welfare grants to make money available for development purposes.
Let me emphasise the words "for development purposes" as the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn was, I think, at one part of her speech under a misapprehension. She spoke of these loans being taken up, as she said, to meet urgent budgetary gaps. They would not be used for that purpose. They would be taken up only for development schemes. Financing urgent budgetary gaps is met if at all by this country by grants in aid.
We take the view that the right place for a Colony to come to raise a loan is the market. In the past the Colonies have come in a very big way to the London market and have established very good credit. There is, I think, no case on record of a Colony defaulting on its obligations. But in recent years it has been more difficult, and not only because rates of interest have been higher than they were before but also as a consequence of the general uncertainty in the world. Therefore, faced with the financial difficulties of the Colonies themselves, particularly in a period when commodity prices have been falling and when there have been difficulties in raising money on the market, we have come forward with this proposal to supplement the market by the provision of Exchequer loans.
Why do we deliberately make this more unattractive than a market loan? The reason is that we think it in the interests of the Colony itself wherever it can to come to the market for its money. Why do we take this view? The reason really is this—to establish creditworthiness. I would emphasise this to the hon. Lady, because I think she queried it in one part of her speech, and it is terribly important for a country which is moving towards sovereignty. A Colony which has borrowed on the London market once, or more than once—several times—and has met its obligations throughout, which has been tested by the market and found trustworthy in the experience of those who recommend the lending of money, will find itself in a much stronger position if it wants to borrow money again, once it is sovereign and has not the same financial backing from the United Kingdom that a Colony has. We think it is terribly important to the future of a Colony to establish its credit-worthiness at as early a stage as possible.
There is a United Kingdom angle in this, too. When the Exchequer makes money available my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not put his hand in his pocket or into a box to find the money to lend—and probably he does not even raise it by taxation but he borrows on the market on the credit of the Government and relends. So that whichever way it is done, it is done at prevailing rates of interest. If money were lent interest-free or at a


lower rate of interest than the prevailing rate of interest, at any rate that part of the loan would be grant.
We are trying to distinguish here between areas which should be provided for by grant and areas which should be provided for by loan, and if there is, as there may well be—and I will come back to this a little later—what we may call a "grey area", with a little uncertainty about it, there is no inherent difficulty in financing it partly by grant, partly by loan. But we say all loans should be raised if possible on the market, and we must try to induce the borrower to come to the market to get a loan, and if the market does not provide the money, we are prepared to do so at a very, very small disincentive increase in rates.
Do not let us exaggerate the burden of the terms of the Exchequer loan. A quarter of 1 per cent. over the market rate is not in itself an excessive charge. Nor, on close examination, will the amortisation terms be found to be so very heavy. They provide, it is true, for the annual repayment of principal and interest. They follow distinguished precedents, including the Commonwealth assistance loan discussed at Montreal and the C.D.C. loans.
How much heavier is the burden? A loan raised on the market attracts the ordinary rate of interest—¼ per cent. less than the Exchequer loan—and will also attract a sinking fund charge which will not be less than 1 per cent., and at the end of the day the borrower has either to repay the capital or to embark on a conversion operation, which may be ex-pensive. In the years between the wars a great many smaller countries in Eastern Europe and South America, which were not very strong financially, raised loans in a hopeful period and got into great difficulty when it came to the conversion operation and the capital repayment.
In one respect at any rate the Exchequer loans are tailored to the purpose on which they are to be spent; that is, in terms of the length of time over which they have to be repaid. Paragraph 20 of the White Paper specifies that this will not normally be more than 30 years. But 30 years is a long period for loans of the type we have in mind.
This brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) who emphasised that the loans

should attract a fixed rate of interest over the whole of their life, even if it should be a 30-year life. There is objection of principle and an objection of expediency to that proposal. The objection of principle is that we are trying throughout the proposal to keep the Exchequer loan as close as we can to a market loan, and, therefore, it should fluctuate in the interest rates which it attracts in the same way as a market loan fluctuates. I am not sure that the borrower is necessarily the loser. If one embarks on a loan operation when interest rates are high and one thinks the rate will come down, one can withhold taking up the next slice of loan against the day when one thinks the interest rates are likely to come down. Therefore, a good calculation on the part of the borrower might lead to the rate of interest being lower and not higher. It can operate the other way, but I should have thought that it would equal out over a long period.
The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) asked me what provision there would be for an moratorium, an escape clause, in the event of a Colony which was borrowing getting into difficulties. If a Colony runs into difficulties, we are able to give assistance on the recurrent account by way of a grant in aid. That is the proper way for the United Kingdom Government to deal with a problem of this kind rather than to arrange special measures of relief in respect of certain items of expenditure. I say this all the more because of the importance of maintaining the creditworthiness of a Colony in respect of any loans it raises on the market. We would not want a Colony to be seen to be invoking an escape clause. We would rather that any assistance necessary came by way of a grant in aid, and it would be in the interests of the Colony just as much as those of anybody else concerned.
9.0 p.m.
I submit to the Committee that, taken together, the interest and amortisation charges on the Exchequer loan are not really as big or likely to be as big a burden on the Colonies taking up these loans as some hon. Members have suggested. There has been a tendency to look the "loan horse" in the mouth. By and large, I think it will be found that the cumulative burden of the interest rates and amortisation is a tiny fraction of the real recurrent charges which arise


from any development scheme. One could imagine the recurrent charges on a new school—keeping the buildings in repair; increases in teachers' salaries; increases in new equipment which has to be bought. All that side of the burden is much heavier than the charges we are now discussing. These will be general in their effect one way or the other.
In her remarks at the beginning of the debate on this Amendment the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn asked whether interest-free loans could still be provided in exceptional cases. That has been done in the past and there is no reason why it should not be done again in special circumstances. But they would not be in the ordinary run of development loans which is what we are here discussing.

Mr. J. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has referred to recurrent charges. Obviously, they would apply in the case of education. Having built the school, as the hon. Gentleman said, there would be the salaries for teachers and so on. But does his argument apply to houses? Surely it would not apply where a Colony obtains a loan on cheap terms to build houses for Africans?

Mr. Amery: I would not be sure in respect of the maintenance costs of the houses once built and the cost of the basic services on a housing estate—sewage and so on. I should have thought that they would be very much higher over a period of years than the actual interest rates. That is an opinion I offer to the Committee for what it is worth.
The hon. Lady—I thought this was rather a debating point—referred to Kenya getting an interest-free loan for an emergency and asked why could not there be an interest-free loan for development which was so much more constructive. The truth is that, by its very nature, emergency expenditure is not capable of carrying charges because it does not develop, it does not produce new worth out of which to finance itself, so it is better that it should be treated either as a grant or as an interest-free loan. We have been discussing a development project which it is 'hoped will not only carry the kind of charges we are discussing, but will be able to contribute much more substantially to the development of the Colony.
As I said earlier, I think there may well be certain projects which could be

financed by a combination of loan and grant. Where the kind of difficulty arises which some hon. Members have had in mind, and for which they would like to have seen a loan especially tailored or produced at special rates of interest, one way of meeting that problem would be by a combination of loans raised at the rate proposed, that is ¼ per cent. over the market rate, combined with a grant, which would, in fact, have the effect of tailoring the financial operation in respect of the issue concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) with whom I could not agree more—I think he was absolutely right and his view is being increasingly shared by other hon. Members—urged that in so far as these loans will represent a burden on the countries taking them up, the best way of easing that burden would be to encourage inter-Commonwealth trade and trade with the Colonies as much as possible. My hon. Friend asked how I thought that should be done. It is more a matter for the Board of Trade than for me, but there are obvious policies on which our colonial trade stands—strength of sterling, Imperial Preferences, progressive investment and the kind of loan finance which we have been discussing.—[An HON. MEM-BER: "And long-term contracts."]—Longterm contracts may also play their part in certain cases, like the sugar contract.
My own view is that the Colonies will take a more sanguine view than the party opposite has taken of these proposals. It will be interesting to see at the end of the five-year period whether they have hesitated to take them up and whether they will regard them as a burden, which is the impression that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn and others have sought to convey. My view is that they will take them up increasingly. Therefore, I must say that we cannot accept the Amendments.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the points which I made. I would not take up the Committee's time were it not for the fact that he has seriously called into question a statement which I made in the main point of my argument. The hon. Gentleman said that I was quite wrong in imagining that these loans were meant in any way to meet a budgetary gap, even a development


budgetary gap at present being closed by short-term advances. That was my point, and I got it from the White Paper.
I would refer the hon. Gentleman to page 8 of that White Paper, which deals with loans, and points out that
When plans for the current development period were being made in 1955 it was hoped that a steady flow of external loan finance would be available for the colonial territories. In fact, however, there has been a serious shortage and this, together with the fall in commodity prices with the consequent effect on the revenue, has adversely affected the pace of development.
Then comes the really important sentence:
Even to finance the rate of development expenditure achieved in certain territories has only been possible by the maximum use of short-term advances in anticipation of loans, so that by the end of this financial year a number of territories will be in urgent need of loans to retire these short-term advances.
The White Paper adds:
It is against this background that the need for a greater degree of assurance about the availability of external loans for the colonies has to be considered…

I maintain that I am justified by the words of the White Paper. In view of that, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not answered the other points, we shall divide the Committee.

Mr. Amery: There is, of course, nothing wrong with it and there has been a good deal in the past of drawing on short-term advances in anticipation of long-term funding operations. That has long been the policy with market loans and may be even with Exchequer loans, but that is not what these loans really will be used for. Their main use is for development plans and not for the bridging of current budgetary gaps, which is the impression I got from the hon. Lady's speech. The loans will be used much more for embarking upon new development schemes.

Mrs. Castle: It is the urgency of the situation to which the White Paper refers that should justify the Government's proposals.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 108, Noes 146.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[9.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Hannan, W.
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Boyd, T. C.
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Short, E. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cronin, J. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, G.
McCann, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, H. J.
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, John


Dodds, N. N.
Mclnnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Foot, D. M.
Mitchison, G. R
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Medllcott, Sir Frank


Alport, C. J. M.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Godber, J. B.
Neave, Airey


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Goodhart, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Armstrong, C. w.
Green, A.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Atkins, H. E.
Grimond, J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Balniel, Lord
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barber, Anthony
Gurden, Harold
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, C.


Batsford, Brian
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, R. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Partridge, E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peel, John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pitman, I. J.


Bldgood, J. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pott, H. P.


Bingham, R. M.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Holt, A. F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hornby, R. P.
Profumo, J. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rawlinson, Peter


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ridsdale, J. E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Roper, Sir Harold


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, R. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Sharples, R. C.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J, K.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Courtney, Cdr. A.
Kirk, P. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Leavey, J. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Currie, G. B. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Dance, J. C. G.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Wall, Patrick


de Ferranti, Basil
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Webster, David


du Cann, E. D. L,
McAdden, S. J.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Duncan, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)



Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Gammans, Lady
Mathew, R.
Mr. Bryan.

Mr. Sorensen: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "if" to "he" in line 31.
The Clause as it stands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I am getting a little hoarse—lays down that the Secretary of State shall not approve a proposal for a loan which involves the execution of any works
if, (except in the case of the Aden Protectorate) he is not satisfied that the law of the Territory provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions, or if (in any case) he is not satisfied that fair conditions of labour will be observed…
The general purpose of the Clause is laudable and will not be objected to on this side of the Committee, or probably on the other side, but it carries a curious omission. Much depends upon which is meant by "Aden Protectorate". Does it include Aden and Aden Colony as

distinct from what is known as "the Protectorate"? In any case, one wonders how there could have been this omission. It may be because of the development towards federation in the Protectorate area, both East and West. But only six out of 23 native States in the Protectorate area have yet acceded to the proposed Federation. The great majority have not yet acceded, including the unfortunate Sultanate of Lahej.

I imagine that the best thing for people in this area, before any further developments take place, would be for us to stipulate here that it is desirable for them to have the proposal in the Clause embodied in the Federation. It is true that there may be no trade unions at present in the Protectorate area, and I rather suspect that that is so; although that does not apply to Aden, where there is a thriving and healthy trade union move-


ment. Hon. Members may think this wise or unwise, but, certainly, in Aden there is a vigorous trade union movement and, I understand, a very happy industrial relationship between employers and employees, even in the oil refinery area of Aden.

It is said that in the Protectorate there seems to be little, if any, industrial development, and that, in consequence, trade unionism may not have yet appeared there. If there is to be any economic development of the Protectorate as well as political development, quite obviously, there may be small minor industries operating, and, with them, also consequentially, the need for trade unions to protect the interests of the employees and workers.

In these circumstances, I urge most strongly that we should get in right at the beginning to lay down that, indeed, for the whole of this area, which may become completely federated, there should be the stipulation that that which we think is highly desirable elsewhere should also apply there.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Are there any trade unions there?

Mr. Sorensen: My hon. Friend asks me whether there are any trade unions there. So far as I can tell, in the Protectorate itself, as distinct from the Colony, there are no trade unions and no industrial workers to speak of. That is part of my case, and I assume that the reason for this deliberate omission is mainly because of the political development towards federation, and possibly the feeling that we should leave it to the future rulers of the Protectorate to decide what they should do in a matter of their own internal affairs.
I would emphasise that, in fact, extensive federation has not yet obtained. We are still a long way from the Aden federation of all protected areas, and, therefore, I believe, certainly in regard to those outside the six acceding States, that the position is as it was before. They are protected by this country, and, therefore, we have a certain amount of responsibility for them.
Our responsibilities extend at present to the other areas as well, and, therefore,

I would urge that we should require from the Under-Secretary particularly some explanation as to why this omission has been deliberately inserted. Secondly, whether my surmise is correct or not—and in any case, after what I have said—I think that it would be wise to withdraw this provision, so that the whole Clause should apply to all colonial protected areas without any discrimination whatever.

Mr. John Dugdale: I, too, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), was amazed at this omission. There must be a mysterious reason for it which none of us understand. If it is because it is a Protectorate, I can see no reason why we should not do our best to help people who have been having our protection. I understand that they would have no objection.
If it is because there are no trade unions, surely there have been no trade unions in many of the Colonies in the past, but they have gradually grown up. In fact, the development of trade unionism in the Colonies since 1945 has been quite remarkable, and has taken place in parts in which it was thought that it would never have done. The Clause provides that these territories shall be helped. It states that:
(4) Where a purpose in aid of which a loan is proposed under this section involves the execution of any works, the Secretary of State shall not approve the proposal if (except in the case of the Aden Protectorate) he is not satisfied that the law of the territory provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions, …
What is wrong with that? What is there about that that cannot be applied to Aden to the fullest extent? Why should we not lay down that there should be fair conditions of labour? Why should they not have trade unions, one of the very things which we in this country think to be very desirable; certainly we on this side of the Committee, and I think on both sides? They were fought for with great toil in the nineteenth century, and we in Britain managed to achieve them. If they have been acheived here, why should they not be achieved in Aden?
When I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton in Aden and in the Protectorates, we flew at one time through the outlying parts and over the area of the Sherif of Behan, who is a great friend


of this country and who thinks a great deal of it. One of the reasons for that is that he realises that we stand for the very things of which he himself approves, although in Aden they have not been developed very far yet. In his territory there is a notice which says that certain things must be observed. It says there must be freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and also freedom from arbitrary arrest—three things, be it noted, all singularly lacking at the moment in Rhodesia, but they are allowed there in Aden and are something for which all of us stand.
Why should there not be added to these freedom to combine and to form unions in order to get the best conditions possible in the Territory? For those reasons, because Aden apparently is not to be allowed this special help in the direction of forming trade unions, I join with my hon. Friend in opposing the proposal to leave out Aden.

Mr. J. Amery: I begin by making clear to both hon. Members who have spoken that the words in brackets to which they have taken objection do not apply to Aden Colony, where there is a strong industrial movement with which we are in close contact and co-operation, as I think is the T.U.C. This applies to the Protectorate only. The omission in this Clause of the Bill only follows a similar omission which has figured in all previous Colonial Development and Welfare Bills beginning with Section 2 of the 1945 Act, which, I suppose, was accepted by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) when he was at the Colonial Office.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That would not make it right. When one makes a mistake one should admit it.

Mr. Amery: I was only surprised at the indignation of the right hon. Member for something which gained currency in his time.

Mr. Creech Jones: It was not a Labour Government, but a Coalition Government, and the Secretary of State at the time was Mr. Oliver Stanley.

Mr. Amery: Many things have happened since then, including the introduction of other Colonial Development and Welfare Acts in which this has always figured. What we are doing here is to

apply to the loan provisions what has existed throughout with reference to grants. We have said that what was considered acceptable where grants are concerned should also be considered acceptable where loans are concerned.
Now I come to the reason for all this. It is extremely simple. The Protectorates are independent countries in treaty relationship with us. Our rights in these Protectorates are concerned with defence and foreign relations and we have no power whatever to legislate for their internal affairs. We have to move as we can and think right, by persuasion and other means, but internal legislation is their affair.
This question of trade union rights, as I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment recognised, is at this stage a theoretical question, because there is no industry at the moment in any of the protectorates. Agriculture and pastoralism are the way of life, so this problem does not yet arise. There is no issue on which we could use our powers of persuasion. That could apply only if there were a problem in existence. That being so, I think that the Committee will agree that the loan provisions, should the Protectorate wish to avail itself of them, should be on the same footing as the grants. Throughout it is on the perfectly reasonable basis—I can see no other basis we could have—that we have not the right Or power 'to interfere in their internal matters on questions of this kind.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask three questions? First, is the Aden Protectorate in this respect different from all other Protectorates? Secondly, if we are prepared to apply this Bill to other Protectorates, why cannot we deal with the Aden Protectorate in the same way? Thirdly, if we have no legal power to apply the provisions of the Bill, why should Aden even be mentioned in the Bill, as legally it is outside the area which the Bill can cover?

Mr. Amery: I think that Brunei and Tonga are in the same position. We have no internal powers there. I confess that the third point did not occur to me this morning. No doubt it ought to have done.

Mr. Sorensen: What about Brunei?

Mr. Amery: That is an extremely wealthy State and it has never asked for loans or grants. The whole problem arose because at the time of the 1945 Act it was desired to help the Aden Pro-tectorate. As applications were being made to the Colonial Office, it was, therefore, decided to make the position quite clear in respect of the Aden Protectorate. I think that the Committee will agree that with the new Federal development it is very much to be desired that we should help them in their way forward. When the problem arises there may be room for persuasion. The problem is not before us yet.

Mr. Dugdale: I realise that we cannot make these laws, but we are to lend the money. Can we not say that, if we lend the money, we hope that they will make the laws and we do not intend to lend unless they do?

Mr. Amery: The problem does not yet arise, because there are no industries in the Protectorate and, therefore, no trade unions. It would be a little theoretical to insist on legislation being enacted in the Protectorate when there is no practical problem on to which it could bite.

Mr. Sorensen: One is aware that Brunei is a very wealthy State, producing as much per head as this country, although it does not share it, I am afraid, with the neighbouring territories. If Brunei applied, as it might conceivably apply, for a loan or a grant or some financial assistance, what would be the position? Should we then have to reject the application and declare to Brunei that it does not come within the orbit of the Bill? If so, surely the latter applies also to the Aden Protectorate?

Mr. Amery: I should want notice of that. I will look into it and get in touch with the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after "territory", to insert
makes adequate provision for the protection of women and children engaged in employment and".
The need for the provision is underlined by what has happened in the industrial development of Hong Kong in recent years. Last year I revealed to the House the cruelly long hours worked by women

and young persons in industrial undertakings in Hong Kong. The allegations that I made at that time have not been refuted from any official sources.
I should like to recall the allegations, because they reveal a tragic story related to relatively uncontrolled industrial development in one of our Colonies. It is a story of women working twelve-hour shifts, seven days per week, with only four days holiday in a whole year. They have a working week of 80½I hours. It is a story of labour laws which legally permitted women and 16-year old children to be worked in industrial undertakings continuously 13 hours a day without a break, which legally enabled women and 16-year old children to be worked 98 hours in a single week for eight weeks in a year. For the remaining 44 weeks they could be worked for 91 hours a week. That can be done in industrial establishments in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong.
I pointed out that these labour laws did not provide for any weekly rest day, except for young persons under 16 years of age; that they did not provide for any statutory holidays, and permitted even young children under 16 years of age to be worked for 54 hours a week. This incredible legislation is not a relic of ancient industrial history. It is comparatively recent. The copy that I have here is dated 18th August, 1955, and bears the signature of the then Governor, Sir Alexander Grantham. Such recent legislation is a disgrace to the House of Commons, which is officially responsible, and it is especially disturbing when we remember that the International Labour Organisation has been in operation for almost 40 years.
I accuse ex-Governor Grantham and his Legislative Council of grave neglect of their responsibility to the masses of the people of Hong Kong. Tens of thousands of women have worked these cruelly long hours at a time when tens of thousands were unemployed—a most fantastic situation. During that period, huge profits were made. I am not against profits as such. In a developing economy there must be profits to carry forward further capital development and the like, but we have it on credible authority that some of the new textile mills recovered the whole of their capital in their first 12 months of operation. I estimate that


the sum represented by that would be equal to at least three times the amount of their annual wage bill. Yet, in many cases, the people worked 12 hours a day for seven days a week.
The comparison I wish to make is not with the United Kingdom but with the rest of Asia; with countries such as India and Pakistan, which recently secured their independence. Their labour legislation protecting women and young persons is far better than that which pretended to protect women and young children in Hong Kong.
It is because of the experience in Hong Kong that I feel that this Amendment is necessary so as to ensure that that story is not repeated in industrial development in other Crown Colonies. I have been to Hong Kong several times and, in my opinion, ex-Governor Grantham, who has had a very big build-up, and his Legislative Council paid too much attention to spectacular developments, and neglected conditions existing behind the scenes. The ex-Governor has referred to Hong Kong as one of the marvels of the world, and has said that it is remarkable what can be done when a country gets rid of "isms" and "ocracies".
I have given the Committee an example of one of the marvels of Hong Kong. These stories lay behind the scenes, and emerged from the masses of the people. Governor Black has a difficult task to clear up this debris, and I wish him luck in it.
I want to make it clear that not all employers in Hong Kong took advantage of these deplorable labour laws. Some employers operated eight-hour shifts of their own volition, but regrettably even they worked their operatives seven days a week in most cases. Many of these employers had excellent welfare facilities, and I pay my tribute to them, but even they allowed themselves to be used by the less scrupulous elements.
For example, Members of Parliament on Parliamentary missions to Hong Kong who have been taken by industrialists to some of the new cotton mills have come back and reported that conditions are good and that workers in Hong Kong work eight-hour shifts. It is true that the mills to which Parliamentary delegates and responsible industrialists from this country were guided gave the impression

that this was the pattern of work in Hong Kong, but in fact it was not. In the main, mills and factories in Hong Kong operate on 12-hour shift systems.
I do not associate the Commissioner of Labour for Hong Kong with this concealment. When I asked him questions based on information which I had received from the trade unions, he was quite forthcoming, and if one refers to the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labour the record of excessive hours of work will be found from the statistical table. But again, in the Annual Report, there was an indication of interference, because the Commissioner refers to the 19 new textile mills in Hong Kong, and in relation to the hours of work he says that nine of them work eight-hour shifts but he makes no reference to the other ten mills, which work on the 12-hour shift system. This indicates perhaps that there had been some interference in the Commissioner's Report.
In the matter of attempted concealment, as recently as last Saturday there was on television a repeat performance of a Hong Kong interview with Mr. Silas, who is a director of two cotton mills in Hong Kong and who was formerly director of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. When asked about working hours, Mr. Silas said:
By law we are only allowed to work them eight or nine hours a day, and we are certainly not allowed to work them at night.
Mr. Silas must have known that that statement about eight or nine hours a day was untrue. I think that Mr. Silas should withdraw that statement, because he occupies an important place in the business community of Hong Kong. Millions of people in this country saw and heard him make that observation as recently as last Saturday, and it was untrue.
By the Amendment, we want some guarantee that this very tragic and deplorable story of Hong Kong will not be repeated, because inevitably other Colonies, as their populations grow, will become industrialised. There is a responsibility upon the House to ensure that this appalling story is not repeated in other Crown Colonies. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to indicate the pattern of labour legislation which the Colonial Office envisages will govern hours of work of women and young


people in the various Colonial Territories. The Committee is entitled to know that.
9.45 p.m.
Is it to be based on Sir Alexander Grantham's notorious regulations which legally permitted women to be worked 13 hours a day without a meal break, or is it to be based on the new regulations which came into operation on 1st January following Miss Ogilvie's Report. If I am not too immodest, she was sent to Hong Kong to investigate the situation in preparation for new legislation following the revelations I made which disturbed both sides of the House. Will the Under-Secretary of State make available in the Library a copy of Miss Ogilvie's Report for Members to see? We are entitled to know what she found as a result of her investigations with regard to the true conditions relating to excessive hours of work in the Colony of Hong Kong.
The new labour regulations appear to be a marked advance—perhaps I may even say a stupendous advance—because these new regulations reduce the maximum working week of a woman or young person by 32 hours. That is a measure of the appalling nature of the former regulations. However, under the new regulations it is still possible for a woman or a young person of 16 or over to be worked 66 hours a week for not more than eight weeks, or an average over the year of not more than 62 hours a week. The maximum working day now becomes 10 hours with provision for overtime not exceeding 100 hours a year.
The new regulations provide for a compulsory day of rest each week for women and young persons. This is a marked and very long overdue improvement, but these hours of work are still considerably in excess—and I am not comparing the figures with those of the United Kingdom, because that would be an unfair comparison—of the daily legal maximum hours of work in other Asian countries, particularly India and Pakistan where the maximum daily hours of work are nine for women and young persons. In Japan the hours of work are even shorter, although in some of the small undertakings in country districts, where the labour regulations do not seem to apply, excessive hours are worked and conditions are almost as bad as those in Hong Kong.
Having made investigations in several of these Asian territories, I can say that in our British Crown Colony of Hong Kong the hours of work for women and young persons in industrial establishments were worse than anywhere in the world, and that is something we ought to be thoroughly ashamed of.
These new labour regulations are an interim measure only, but I urge the Under-Secretary of State to take a personal interest in this matter. Our prestige as a colonial Power is at stake. Hong Kong is on the doorstep of Communist China and it could provide an opportunity for us to show what can be done in a free community, but I know from my experience of Hong Kong that just the opposite is being demonstrated.
In Hong Kong we have one of the most outstanding exhibitions in the world of the contrast between wealth and poverty. There are large numbers of immensely wealthy people, but far larger numbers of people who are miserably poor, depressed, hungry and suffering from malnutrition and neglect in every way. I hope that serious interest will be taken in the basic problem of safeguarding the lives of these masses of downtrodden people, as many of them are. There is surely a need to bring the eight-hour day into Hong Kong at the earliest possible moment, if only for the purpose of sharing out the work among the masses of unemployed people there. It is not because industry is unprofitable in Hong Kong; very great profits are being made there.
I hope that the Colonial Secretary will make it unmistakably clear to colonial Governments, administrators and employers, that if Parliament makes money available to them for industrial development purposes they must ensure that women and young persons are not worked for longer hours than in independent Asian and African countries. That is necessary for our good name as a colonial Power. I regret to say that the record of excessive hours of work for women and young persons in Hong Kong factories will come to be one of the darkest chapters of our twentieth century colonial history, and I urge the Government to see that this sorry story is not repeated in other Colonial Territories.

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like the Under-Secretary to satisfy me on one point. He is aware that many schemes have been introduced for the benefit of Hong Kong under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. In respect of all grants and other issues from the funds established by that Act it was always a requirement that fair labour conditions and facilities for trade union activities should be enjoyed in the territory concerned. How, then, does it come about that such a deterioration has been allowed to develop in Hong Kong while that territory has been continually enjoying the facilities of the Acts?
If this sort of thing is happening in Hong Kong, may it not also be happening in other territories where industry is developing and women are being caught up in it? Is adequate supervision provided by the Colonial Office? A few years ago we appointed a woman assistant labour adviser. Is she able to get round territories enjoying the benefit of the Acts, discover conditions for herself and report to the Secretary of State upon them?

Mr. John Stonehouse: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) said. The Amendment will apply not only to the Colony of Hong Kong, but to many other territories for which we are responsible. For instance, in the industrialisation of countries like Uganda and Kenya there is increasing employment of women in factories. Thousands of them are now being employed in the developing industries of Uganda, and the Amendment goes a long way towards strengthening a reasonably good cause. But we must also bear in mind the employment of African children in industrial undertakings in countries like Kenya and Northern Rhodesia.
In Northern Rhodesia, for instance, in the tobacco-grading establishments children of as young an age as 12 are employed, some of them doing very heavy jobs indeed, being expected to carry heavy weights and do long hours of arduous toil. The question of the employment of African children has to be watched very closely.
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the work done by our labour departments in these territories. Only a few weeks ago, I was talking about

this problem with the officials of the labour department in Northern Rhodesia and I have a great deal of respect for the job they are doing. We must, however, strengthen their hands, and one of the ways of doing so is by agreeing to the Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is not my intention to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I did not want to sit here without placing on record my hearty appreciation of the informative speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton).
My hon. Friend is a well-known representative of the cotton industry in Lancashire. He has a great record to his credit. He has the confidence of the Lancashire cotton operatives and he has been truly representative of the Lancashire cotton operatives in the speech that he has made this evening. He has travelled the Far East on several occasions and has done his duty by the people whom he represents. He has reflected their ideas in moving the Amendment. The least I can do is to give credit where it is due. We ought to have more of this kind of thing in the House of Commons, because conditions throughout the world require it. I am very pleased with the Amendment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have no desire to delay the Committee. I know that there has been a full debate and that the issues raised are wide issues of general application and not merely of local importance. I hope, however, that the Committee will forgive me for only one minute to make just one point.
There are repercussions of these matters at home. My own constituency and Lancashire generally are suffering severely in their basic industry, which in many constituencies is the sole industry or almost the sole industry. The competition is difficult because of these very low standards of labour conditions. The importance of this matter to Lancashire and to our home industry may be realised if I point out that there was no textile industry whatever in Hong Kong until 1953 and that in six or seven years after that, the textile industry was responsible for 60 per cent. of the exports from Hong Kong and represents now 20 per cent. of all the imported manufactured textile goods into this country. We have,


therefore, a very direct selfish interest in the matter, as well as our general duty to maintain good living standards in our own Colonies, especially the Crown Colonies, for which the House of Commons has a direct responsibility.

Mr. J. Amery: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) for speaking on behalf of the Lancashire cotton operatives. The hon. Member for Farnworth, like myself, is a Lancashire Member. I thought, however, that the way in which he put his case showed that he was thinking not so much of the competition from which we in Lancashire are suffering as of the real human problem which exists in Hong Kong.

Mr. Thornton: I should like to make it clear that I raised the matter solely as a humanitarian issue. In the investigations for which I went out, I went for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to do a survey of the Asian textile industries as preliminary work for the Asian textile workers' conference. What I have suggested is that if the Hong Kong industry went on to eight-hour shifts instead of 12-hour shifts, I am sure it would be more efficient. The best-managed firms have already discovered that. We discovered many years ago that to work people excessive hours means expensive labour costs.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Amery: I was sure that that was the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I thought it right to draw attention to that point. I think, perhaps, that he is like me in that I first got interested in the problem of wages in the Far East because of the problem of competition with Lancashire, and when one goes into it one finds it becomes a human problem far greater than that of the local considerations with which we have to deal.
The problem of Hong Kong, and especially the labour problem, is particularly difficult, as I am sure the hon. Member, having been there, realises quite as well as anybody else in the Committee. The population has more than trebled since the revolution in China. There is a rush for jobs of any sort, and the chief task of the Government of Hong Kong

has been to try to attract capital, money, and means of employment into the Colony. There have been, as the result of circumstances arising from the revolution on the borders of Hong Kong, circumstances created which have reproduced in the middle of the twentieth century some of the worst features of the Industrial Revolution of the last century.
We have been trying to cope with the problem, and I am glad, as the hon. Gentleman himself recognised, that there is new legislation enacted in recent months which has considerably improved conditions by comparison with what they were before. We believe—it is our intention—that those are only the first steps, and that we shall go further along the road on which we have been travelling in this recent legislation.
Of course, one of the difficulties of this is that the trade union movement, as the hon. Member probably knows, is sharply divided between the Communists and the Kuomintang supporters, and they spend a good deal of their time fighting one another and not enough of their time agitating for proper conditions for the people they are supposed to represent.
There is on top of all this, and in spite of the difficulties and the conditions of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, an enormous urge to escape from China and to come into the Colony. A hundred thousand people or more a year try to come inside, despite all the precautions which are taken to let in only genuine. bona fide, refugees.
I would be quite prepared, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be, to discuss this problem of Hong Kong in greater detail on another occasion, but I think there are difficulties, which, I am sure, the hon. Member will appreciate, in attempting to deal with this matter by, as it were, tacking it on by this Amendment proposed to the Bill. My right hon. Friend is in the fullest agreement with the general principle which inspires the supporters of the Amendment in wishing to see established in the territories for which the Government are responsible the highest possible labour standards, particularly in relation to the employment of women and children, but, as I say, there are some difficulties in trying to introduce this into the Bill.
The Bill already requires that my right hon. Friend must be
satisfied that the law of the territory provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions
and includes a fair wages clause and a minimum age for children in connection with works on which C.D.W. money is actually spent. It reproduces those conditions for the new Exchequer loans as, of course, the old grants. I think that is as far as it is reasonable or wise to go in attempting in general terms to regulate conditions in these matters in Colonies by detailed stipulations in United Kingdom legislation. A lot of this has to be done locally rather than here.
The Amendment would apply not only to works on which Exchequer loans are actually spent but to any and every form of employment in a Territory.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not?

Mr. Amery: It may well be that there is a case, but I am not arguing that for the moment; but if there is such a case this is not the place—getting it in by the back door as it were—to put it. There ought to be a great Measure to deal with the matter, and not only an Amendment introduced during the Committee stage on this Bill.
The loans to be authorised under the Clause will be required for important economic and social development programmes aimed at the wellbeing of the particular community concerned. I wonder, therefore, whether it is reasonable that the community should be deprived of these services through the refusal of United Kingdom financial assistance merely because laws have not been enacted to deal with matters which may already be satisfactorily governed by local agreement and practice, and perhaps in fields in which we in Britain have not yet legislated.
There are many aspects of the employment of women and young children in this country which are a matter of practice and not law. Hours of work in the agricultural industry are not stipulated, nor does legislation provide a weekly day of rest for all workers in this country. It is important to bear in mind that the Bill already provides for the development of trade unions and the elimination of bad practices. This is something in respect of which we can increasingly rely on the

growing trade union movement in the overseas territories.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In this country we have a fair wages clause. Before a Government Department gives out contracts it asks whether the fair wages clause is being applied. My hon. Friend is saying that before we grant a loan these standards should be applied.

Mr. Amery: The Amendment adds up to something much more sweeping. We have always had in the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts certain provisions governing questions like the employment of children on C.D. and W. projects and facilities for establishing trade unions. This is going a good deal further in joining by legislation here some things which may be better left to practice and others which should be legislated for locally and may not always be immediately required. To stipulate that all these matters should be dealt with by law is to go further than we ourselves have done in a great many respects.
There is another difficulty. If those conditions were to be included in the provision for loans, it would be logical to amend also that portion of the Bill dealing with grants. This would cause very serious administrative difficulties. There are many schemes already under way which cannot, without much loss, be stopped while legislation is being enacted. During the 19 years in which this legislation for development and welfare grants has been in operation, no suggestion for such a limitation has ever been made.
After careful thought, we have reached the conclusion that the improvement of conditions of employment will in many of the Colonies concerned be not a very rapid matter. The pace will depend on what is practicable in each country. In a number of territories we have reached the position where responsibility and power in social matters is largely delegated to local powers. It would not be wise or logical to specify in too great detail exactly what standards have to be observed in each Colony, particularly the ones moving towards greater self-government. That would not apply to Hong Kong, which is very much under Governor and Crown Colony rule.

Mr. Dugdale: Does this mean that the hon. Gentleman contemplates giving loans


in cases where industries are run without making adequate provision for the protection of the women and children employed?

Mr. Amery: We have been giving grants to Hong Kong over a number of years, and if there is a need to do that, it would be wrong to withhold them, particularly when one thinks of the problems in existence in Hong Kong.
In conclusion on this matter, I would say that the hon. Member has raised a number of extremely important points. As I said earlier, I am sure my right hon. Friend would be very glad to discuss these in a different context, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, agree that if a problem of this sort has to be dealt with by legislation—I am not sure whether that is the right way to deal with it—it should not be done by way of an Amendment to this Bill, but should be given more general discussion and treated on its own merits separately.

Mr. Callaghan: We have had a Departmental reply from the Under-Secretary in response to what was undoubtedly a masterly exposition of the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), whose knowledge of the labour conditions in the area of which he was speaking is unrivalled in the House of Commons.
I could not follow the Under-Secretary's arguments. We are introducing into the

Bill at this stage a new principle and proposing for the first time to make loans to these Territories. What the Opposition are asking is that before the loans are made there should be reasonable protection in the employment of women and children in the Territories concerned.

That is the request which the Under-Secretary rejected on two grounds. First, he said that we should not use the Committee stage to introduce Amendments, because that would be "dragging it in by the tail", and, secondly, feeling that that was not very strong, he said that we had already given grants and should, therefore, give loans.

I turn that argument round. This is a very good way of introducing the principle, on loans, and saying that if these areas are to have loans, British public opinion will demand that they should have laws which make it possible for the women and children of those areas to be adequately protected in their employment. British money is to be lent and British public opinion has the right to express its views about the conditions under which the money should be lent. We have had a purely Departmental brief in reply to the Amendment, and I recommend my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 94, Noes 137.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parkin, B. T.


Boardman, H.
Hannan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Short, E. W.


Crossman, R, H. S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, G. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dodds, N. N.
McCann, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacDermot, Niall
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mclnnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stonehouse, John


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Foot, D. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.




Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Wheeldon, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard



White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)
Woof, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Medllcott, Sir Frank


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Green, A.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Armstrong, C. W.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Atkins, H. E.
Gurden, Harold
Noble. Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)


Batsford, Brian
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborne, C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Rt. Hon, E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Peel, W. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pott, H. p.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holt, A. F.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bralthwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Profumo, J. D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawllnson, Peter


Carr, Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ridsdale, J. E.


Channon, H. P. C.
Iremonger, T. L.
Roper, Sir Harold


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharpies, R. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kirk, P. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Dance, J. C. G.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


de Ferranti, Basil
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, E. D. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maddan, Martin



Gibson-Watt, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mathew, R.
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.


Godber, J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. 8. L. C.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out "in force" and to insert "made".

The Temporary Chairman: It will, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with this Amendment the next one on the Notice Paper to line 40, leave out from "section" to "shall" in line 41 and the next six Amendments to this Clause on page 1529 of the Notice Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Mr. Arbuthnot, I think that that would be for the benefit of the Committee, at this time of night, as well as of yourself.
The purpose of the Government's proposal is that a scheme in a Colonial Territory shall cease to have effect at the moment the territory becomes independent, subject to certain minor amendments that payments which were due under the scheme, and incurred before the territory became independent, shall still be met. This seems to us to be unsatisfactory and it also seems to reflect a change of policy. In the 1950 Act the Labour Government removed this stipulation. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to tell us why he proposes to put it back again.
The 1950 Act repealed a Section in the previous Act confining benefits to territories not possessing responsible self-government, thereby removing a limitation which, it was said, might prevent in the future the giving of help to certain territories which had received assistance in the past. So that the territories should not be excluded from assistance because they possessed responsible government, the Secretary of State for the Colonies now decides whether any particular dependency should be regarded as eligible for colonial development and welfare assistance.
The position, then, is as follows. In 1940, the Colonial Secretary had no discretion in this matter. He was told that as soon as a territory became independent, it had to be excluded from the benefits. In 1950, the then Labour Government took power to give the Colonial Secretary this discretion, which has re-

mained until this evening, when the present Government wish, apparently, to return to the original 1940 position and remove any discretion from the right hon. Gentleman.
This seems strange. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on the basis of what experience over the last nine years he justifies this alteration which seems to act in an arbitrary and unfair manner. Think what the position will be. In some territories there may be a school being built out of colonial development and welfare funds. As I read the Bill, not all of the money in respect of the school will be paid out. It will give the Colonial Secretary the power to pay out money only in respect of the part that has been built. In other words, we shall not leave the newly emergent territories in debt.
On the other hand, the Bill takes away the Minister's power to make a payment for the half of the school not completed. If the school is to cost £10,000 we can pay the first £5,000 for the part of the school that is built and not pay the other £5,000. I think that interpretation is right, but it seems a rather miserly way in which to part from our Colonial
Territories. The Minister's discretion should be retained.
Anyone in the Committee can think of half a dozen projects, such as for agricultural research, productivity and fishery, and all of us who have been round the Colonies have seen such projects in process of completion or being started. Are we to part with the Colonies saying, "We have half done the job. You have now your independence and we shall pay for everything up to independence. It is a matter for discretion whether we pay for anything afterwards." That is an attitude of which we should not be too proud.
I suppose that the Under-Secretary of State will say, "We can bear that cost on the Commonwealth Vote." By the hon. Gentleman's nod of the head I see that I have anticipated his line of defence. I think that has been done in the case of Malaya. There was a transfer in the case of Ghana, which was treated rather less generously than Malaya was treated. Why should we do it in this cumbersome


way? Why not leave the sanction in the Bill to continue with the necessary payment until the task to which we set our hands is completed? That would seem to be the simpler way. I should like to go further in the Amendment and to say that schemes which had been agreed under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts but which have not been embarked upon should be completed. That would seem to be an act of reasonable generosity. Our Amendment would make it possible for the Government to do that and I would like to see the idea earned out in that way.
When plans have been laid and territories have embarked upon this proposition, they have got the plans set out and they ought to be able to carry them through. I do not suppose I would ever get the Government to go as far as that, but I shall not regard it as satisfactory if the Under-Secretary of State tells me that we can bear this later, if we want to do it, on the Commonwealth Relations Department Vote. This is the place where the idea originated and the place where the money was voted. This is the scheme which is proper to the occasion and the Government should think about it again.
The Government should not go back on the principle which was established in 1950. If we put our hands to a job we should finish it off and not stop half way through because the territory in question becomes independent. Let us part from our territories saying, "We have embarked upon these jobs and we shall finish them before we leave, although you have now become fully independent." I hope that at this late hour the Under-Secretary of State may be disposed to be generous.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say something to us on this subject. I noticed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself raised the matter in his Second Reading Speech, and said that we had to find other ways and means of giving help when a territory became independent. We want to know clearly what those ways are. It is of very real concern to all of us in the Committee that at the very moment when the needs are greatest, as we all know, there should be any doubt at all about the financial situation.
10.30 p.m.
We all have our own pictures of the problem. I think of the Federation of the West Indies which we hope will develop into an independent territory within the Commonwealth at a not very distant date. It would be appalling if there were to be any doubt about the continuation of assistance by schemes which have been developed under colonial development and welfare funds which have undoubtedly made very valuable contributions.
There are clear examples of the sort which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has mentioned of schemes in the West Indies—for example, road development schemes in an island like Dominica. Are we to say that because a certain section of the road has been completed we cannot give advance guarantees about the other sections which require to be completed? This is the sort of thing upon which the whole opening-up and development of the territory depends. It is not good enough to say, "We will think of that when we reach that situation." We cannot plan on that basis. We have got to have some foreknowledge, some guarantee in advance about the continuity of work of this sort. Therefore, it is vital that we should have some clear understanding.
Similarly one has heard heart-felt pleas from those who are responsible for development work in a territory like British Honduras. Not long ago there were developments there which were most urgent—the whole question of the development and building of the main city in Belize and the problem of attempting to restore some of the forests in that territory which were so scandalously cut down some years ago. Is there to be a break in this kind of valuable work upon which people depend?
Taking the case of British Honduras, it may be—we do not know—that that territory at some time in the future will wish to associate itself with the Federation of the West Indies. We cannot tell at the moment. Obviously the view of the inhabitants in that territory would be affected by the attitude that we adopt to the question of continuity of financial support. By that I do not mean that we should envisage indefinite support in the future, but such support as would ensure


that they themselves in that territory can look forward to co-operating with us in building their own economy. It is that kind of approach about which we are so desperately concerned.
Then there are medical developments, such as hospital and other services which have in part been provided and are envisaged under colonial development and welfare funds, which make nonsense unless there is some guarantee of continuity. It will have been a waste to provide what we have already provided unless there is some reasonable understanding that this work is to continue. Therefore, we need to have something more than an expression of general good will. We want to know how, in fact, this kind of support and co-operation is to be continued.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I can assure the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that the subsection would not affect the West Indies. Indeed, the change to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred was made in order to overcome the difficulty of definition, because it was held that the previous definition excluded from the operation of the Act territories like Malta, which had internal self-government. It was not the intention to extend the Act to independent Commonwealth countries which had moved from a dependent to an independent status.
I hope that I shall be able to give the assurance for which I have been asked, and which concerns hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that there is no issue of principle at stake. All we are discussing is a difference of opinion about ways and means of providing the continuity to which hon. Members have referred.
The subsection with which the Amendment is concerned makes it possible for payments to be made after independence in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with C.D. and W. schemes before independence. We have always made it a principle—and with such experience as I have, I am sure that it is the right principle—that at the moment when independence is granted everything possible should be done to give full significance to the change taking place.
We have felt that where a scheme is partially completed at the point when independence is achieved, the method of providing the finance for ensuring the continuation of that scheme should not be in accordance with provisions of the colonial development and welfare scheme, which is applicable not to the period of independence but to the previous dependent status.
We had an interesting debate on the last Amendment and we had a most interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). Hon. Members will agree that that was an outstanding feature of the debate and has made the day we have spent here worth while in itself.
Hon. Members will appreciate that whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of an industrial problem in a dependent territory, and whatever action we here may decide to take in connection with it, or with a social problem, it would be greatly resented by an independent country, particularly in its first flush of independence, if it were felt that the financial provision being made by the United Kingdom, whether by loan or grant, was made under conditions which, as set out in the Bill, were applicable to a dependency. That would appear to be an interference with full independent status and independent policies towards social matters and labour problems of an independent Commonwealth country.
There is another point. Hon. Members will realise, I am sure, that there is strict accountability by the Colonial Government concerned to the Treasury here, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the expenditure of moneys put out under C.D. and W. schemes.
In our view this strict accountability is not appropriate to the financial relationship between the United Kingdom and the newly independent Commonwealth country either after its independence has been of some standing or, perhaps more particularly, when it is extremely new. In those circumstances we have felt—and I am sure that this is right—that we should find other means of providing the continuity, for we accept in general principle that it is most desirable that continuity should be provided, in commitments which have been undertaken under C.D. and W.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East raised this point on Second Reading. He asked my right hon. Friend this question:
As to that subsection I wonder if the Colonial Secretary can tell us whether commitments entered into by those Governments before they attained their independence will be fulfilled by the Government? Or will they be cut off, too?
The hon. Member was referring to Colonial Governments emerging from dependent status. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary replied,
No. They are certainly continued."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 62.]
I therefore hope that, although the hon. Member was slightly critical of the Commonwealth Services Vote, he will realise that it provides the means whereby, as in the case of Malaya, the continuity which he seeks can be given to the schemes which were embarked on during a period of dependency and which must be carried to completion when the country has independent status.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member has used two words, and I do not know whether in his mind there is any technical difference between them. On one occasion he said that commitments would be fulfilled and on another occasion he said that schemes would be fulfilled. I understand that commitments may be schemes which have not yet been embarked on. Is that the difference, and does he mean "commitments" in its fullest sense?

Mr. Alport: I mean commitments. There are three stages in the financing of colonial development and welfare. There is expenditure, when money is spent and the buildings are raised. There is the commitment, when the scheme is approved, an individual allocation of money has been made and it becomes a firm commitment. There is the previous phase, which is the general allocation. I used the word "commitments", and the hon. Member used that word in his question, to which I referred him.
In the case of Malaya, through the Commonwealth Services Vote, in addition to a grant of £308,000 to the University of Malaya we made a grant of about £4 million for general development purposes in which we caught up all the outstanding commitments which had preceded the grant of independence to Malaya. In the

case of Ghana, which was in a somewhat different position, we made a grant of £350,000 to the Kumasi College of Technology, which provides a great monument in Ghana to the work of colonial development and welfare.
There are therefore alternative means of meeting the point which hon. Members opposite have raised and of providing continuity after independence has been achieved. I submit to the Committee that these means are much better attuned to the psychology of independent Commonwealth countries, particularly in the immediately post-independence period. They give greater freedom to these countries in the expenditure of the fund and, a point which I regard as most important, they do not give the impression that we are trying by means of economic aid I o exercise a veiled influence over and to interfere in a secretive way in their independent policies.
That is the particular argument and I hope hon. Members opposite will take it this way—that we are just as determined to ensure that the work which has started in these independent territories under colonial development and welfare schemes is not wasted but carried through to the fruitful end which was originally intended.
10.45 p.m.
One other argument I put to the hon. Member in the hope that he will feel he need not press this group of Amendments, is that if he is going to include a number of schemes and sources of expenditure in this Bill which can be met outside the Bill, all that will happen will be that the amount of money available for Colonial Territories in the strict sense will be by so much reduced. I have shown that there are other means of meeting the points he had in mind. I agree with something he said earlier, that the needs of some Colonial Territories are very great indeed. I do not believe it right to try to squeeze the independent territories into this Bill but that the money which will be allocated as a result of the Bill should be available for the dependent territories and available to assist this Parliament and this country in carrying out the very special responsibility we owe them.

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry to detain the Committee, but I still am not clear on this point and I am referring at this stage not to the wider proposal in our series


of Amendments, but to the very narrow point of the stage at which aid given to a Colonial Territory that becomes independent is cut off.
In his speech, the Under-Secretary used a phrase which, I think, is significant and which contradicts an earlier impression he gave. He said that under this Clause commitments would be met after independence and—I think I am quoting his words—in respect of expenditure actually incurred. That is taking the word "commitment" in a very narrow sense. That is, I fear, the sense in which the Government mean it; indeed, I think that that is the sense in which the words in the Measure must be interpreted.
As the Under-Secretary pointed out, on Second Reading, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on this point about commitments, the Colonial Secretary said of the commitments:
They are certainly continued
but he went on to say:
The way in which we are approaching that was explained in some detail at the time of the Ghana Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 62.]
The payments made after independence under Section 3 (2) of the Ghana Independence Act were very much payments which were adjustments on audit. They were very marginal adjustments and not a settlement of the payments of outstanding allocations which had not yet been taken up. I think that that is the difference between us even on this narrower point to which I am now referring.
If we are to get continuity there must be, as it were, a twilight period between colonial status and independent status. There must be an overlap period in which plans made while the Colonial Territory was still drawing this kind of aid are coming to final fruition. Our point, very strongly, is that unless we allow in the Bill for the completion, after independence, of schemes that have been planned and for which allocations have been made, there will be a sudden break that will be financially inconvenient to the territory. Worse still, all those countries approaching the point of independence will be operating their planning schemes in uncertainty.
The Under-Secretary said, "You need not worry. After all, we treated Malaya quite generously." Indeed, one of the

points made by my hon. Friend was that Malaya was treated better than Ghana, but as Ghana has been quoted by the Under-Secretary we have to presume that it will be the model for the future. When independence came, Ghana had outstanding allocations made under the 1945 Act—she had not had any allocations under the 1955 Act. The shadow of independence was already over her, and that may be one of the reasons that no further allocations were made.
At the time of the Ghana Independence Bill it was thought that the outstanding allocations might amount to as much as £350,000 but, in fact, when the time came, the amount was about £100,000. The Under-Secretary has said, "It was all right. We at once stepped in with some other form of provision. Provision was made in the Commonwealth Services Vote for the completion of the Kumasi College of Technology." It is true that the allocation was made from the Commonwealth Services Vote but, of course, even if Ghana had not become independent the money for the completion of the college would have come from the colonial development and welfare central fund for colleges and not from the territorial allocation for Ghana.
It is because there is this kind of dubiety that we on this side are genuinely unhappy about the Clause. I am not, at this late hour, making merely a debating point—I am far too tired for that—but I want the Government very carefully to consider the present words in the Clause
… without prejudice to the making of payments in pursuance of the scheme after that time in respect of any period falling before that time,…
The reference is not to any scheme, plan or other allocation, but to "period." That can only mean what the Clause in the Ghana Independence Bill meant—absolutely minute marginal adjustments on audit that might fall to be dealt with—

Mr. Alport: Perhaps, on this technical point, I can help both the hon. Lady and the Committee. The Clause gives the Government power under C.D. and W. to reimburse moneys expended prior to independence, but which become due after it. The reason for this provision is that a Colonial Territory expends money on a scheme and then claims it back from the Colonial Office and the United Kingdom Treasury when it is in a position to do so—presumably, when the


receipts and accounts are available. That is done roughly four times a year—quarterly.
The result is that during a period of, I suppose, up to a year, or even longer, there may be further moneys being claimed from the United Kingdom in respect of expenditure that has previously taken place under C.D. and W. The hon. Lady is quite right to call this a narrow point. The Clause seeks to make it possible for these moneys to be paid out in respect of previous expenditure for which the accounts and demands come in afterwards.

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he has confirmed that I rightly interpreted his use of the word "commitment." As it stands at present it is only where expenditure has actually been incurred that the payments will be made. In other words, the colonial Government must have paid the money out. This is a very narrow interpretation of the word, and not the one that we were operating on. We say that it does not give sufficient margin of continuity, because it means that we will have a two-tier situation.
On the one hand, the territory will have a scheme on which expenditure has been incurred, in respect of which claims lie against us under the Commonwealth Development and Welfare Acts—and those claims will be met, otherwise we would be seriously letting down the territory in respect of expenditure which it had incurred in good faith—and, parallel with that, other schemes will have been planned for a considerable time ahead, which are only just coming to fruition.
What happens, apparently, is that at the moment of independence any claims under the Acts in respect of those schemes, however far advanced they may be, will fall, unless expenditure has been incurred. We say that that does not provide the necessary sort of continuity. We say that we must have this overlap between colonial and independent status, in which the colonial Government should be covered under the scheme to give it proper confidence to plan ahead.

Mr. William Wells: Is the Under-Secretary's argument that no territory incurs expenditure until the allocation has been made? If so, I can

understand his argument, but if not, I do not understand it at all.

Mr. Alport: I hoped I had made it clear that the subsection deals with expenditure. Later in my remarks I turned to the question of commitments. The hon. Lady has said that unless we accept the Amendment the financial support from the United Kingdom for the commitments which may be partly carried out will fall, the commitment will cease to exist, and the financial support will disappear. She implies that a newly independent territory will become completely responsible for the further financing of any such projects. But I have been arguing that that is not what happens. It is not what happened in the case of Ghana, and certainly not what happened in Malaya.
What happened was that a more appropriate means of providing the finance was substituted for the finance available from colonial development and welfare funds—more appropriate for an independent as opposed to a dependent country. I was suggesting that the more appropriate method was through the Commonwealth Services Vote rather than under these funds, and under this Bill, because the Bill provides certain requirements which could be regarded by an independent Government as an interference in its policies, and has certain requirements for Treasury control and responsibility to the Secretary of State which are inappropriate to the financial relationships between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government in Ghana, or the Government of Malaya.

Mrs. Castle: Under what legislation is that obligation laid upon us? Is it merely an ex gratia payment?

Mr. Alport: This is part of the financial arrangements which have been made in the case of previously dependent territories.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked my right hon. Friend to answer a question, and I drew the attention of the Committee to my right hon. Friend's answer. Indeed, in the case of Nigeria—I can give this assurance—any unexpended balance of moneys committed in schemes remaining at the time of the independence of, say, Nigeria next year will be catered for


when it comes to deciding the financial arrangements which are appropriate to the new independent State of Nigeria.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that we should ensure that when we make these financial arrangements for an independent Commonwealth country, the relationships which they represent between the United Kingdom and the new country should be appropriate to independence and should not merely be, so to speak, the left-over from the colonial days.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, AND COMMENCEMENT.)

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, to leave out "Colonial" and to insert "Commonwealth".

The Temporary Chairman: It would, perhaps, be convenient to take, at the same time, the similar Amendment in line 20.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Mr. Arbuthnot.
A great deal of nonsense is talked about colonialism. One knows that there have been many vicious practices under that heading. We have now reached a stage in human history, however, when the word "Colony" signifies an anachronism which is no longer applicable to the life of the world as we would like it to be. Consequently, in the case of the British territories, we have got into the habit of talking of the Commonwealth, and because the word "Colony" is covered with opprobrium we prefer to think of what we call junior members of the Commonwealth or members of the Commonwealth not in full membership.
It is because we are thinking in new terms of association, of friendship, and not of tutelage or domination, that more and more we use the word "Commonwealth" in relation to British territories overseas, although we call them junior members or not quite full members of the Commonwealth.
What we suggest by the Amendment is that henceforth, however familiar we may be with the term "colonial development and welfare", we should refer to the

funds and the Act, as the Bill will become, as "Commonwealth Development and Welfare". This is not a particularly revolutionary or radical suggestion. It will bring the funds into line with normal thought in this country, at least concerning the dependencies overseas. I hope sincerely that this modest Amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Alport: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) is proud of the contribution which he and the Government of which he was a member made to the development of what is now a large and historic body of legislation that goes under the title "colonial development and welfare legislation". It represents and signifies in our minds and, I think, in the minds of a great many people overseas in the dependent territories the contribution which the United Kingdom has made to the development of their conditions of life, their economic future, their resources and, indeed, the general improvement of their prospects. It has what is now a long and honourable record covering nearly twenty years. I am told—I am sure it is true—that at no time during that period has any dependent territory been reluctant to avail itself of C.D. and W. assistance because it is linked with the term "colonial". As far as my information goes, at present none of the territories feels any inhibitions on this score.
The word "colonial", in association with this title, is not only something to which we have become used, but it is also one which is accurate. Had it been decided to alter the Bill in the terms of an earlier Amendment, which was out of order, and had it been the decision of the Committee and the House to extend the operation of the Bill to the independent Commonwealth, I should have thought it would logically follow that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment should be accepted, but in the present circumstances, since the term "colonial development and welfare" has a long and honourable record and a very special significance in our relations with our dependent territories overseas, and since it is an accurate description of this piece of legislation, its objectives and purpose, I do not think that I could recommend the Committee to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "Welfare", to insert "(Amendment)".
The object of the Amendment is purely procedural. It is to change the Title of the Bill to the Colonial Development and Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1959. The reason is that Parliamentary counsel are preparing a consolidation of all five Colonial Development and Welfare Acts together with this one. Following the usual custom, we propose to reserve the title "The Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959" for the consolidated version. This means that any consequential amendments to Clause 4 (1) and (3) will be made automatically by the Bill Office and need not be enacted by Parliament. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 25 and 26.
The purpose of the Amendment is procedural, to delete the provision by which the Bill was to have come into effect on 1st April, 1959. It is now obvious that it cannot be enacted by that date, and the provision, therefore, becomes meaningless.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments (changed to "Colonial Development and Welfare (Amendment) Bill"); as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: We have now reached the end of our consideration of the Bill. Alas, I cannot claim that the Opposition have had much influence upon the Government in Committee. None of our Amendments has been accepted. The Bill stands as it stood before it came here, with the exception of certain textual Amendments. Therefore, the Government have had their own way entirely.
Nevertheless, I should not like it thought that because our Amendments have been rejected we do not wish the Bill well. As the Under-Secretary has said, the Bill represents another instalment of a very great and imaginative

conception and it is something which we on this side of the House give our total support. We are delighted that the Bill has reached this stage, although we should have liked to have seen some Amendments made to it.
In doing what is our duty in this matter we are contributing to an enlightened humanitarianism in international relations, and it is a duty to which, I hope, we can attach some credit to ourselves in what we are doing. We are also doing no less than our duty to those who have committed themselves or have been committed to our responsibility. I wish the Bill well. I hope that it will have an easy passage through its next stages and will soon become law, and that it will be possible to go ahead with the work.
I trust that the Under-Secretary will keep a close eye on its working and will ensure that the complaints which occasionally reach us about the machinery provisions will be overcome. Now and again, we are told that there seems to be a rather long period between the date on which proposals are put forward and the date on which they are agreed. I know that all the accountancy work must be got through, but the work is urgent and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep his eye on it to ensure that there is no undue delay.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On every possible occasion I have been raising in this context a problem about which many of us on both sides of the House have been much worried. A large sum of money is very rightly voted through these funds for the development of health services in the Colonial Territories. While it is no doubt true, as the Colonial Secretary has said in the past, that, broadly speaking, the problem today is no longer one of recruitment of personnel, but rather one of finance, that is not true of the medical services. As has been made clear in answer to Questions of mine and of other hon. Members in the House, there is a serious lack of senior personnel in the medical services in several of these territories.
I wish again to draw the attention of the Colonial Office to the serious situation that has arisen in some territories where we lack senior personnel to take charge of many of the valuable schemes which colonial development and welfare funds


have been helping to initiate. I would draw the attention of the Colonial Office to correspondence that has appeared in The Times and elsewhere on this very matter. The question has been raised many times, but little progress seems to have been made. I seriously ask the Under-Secretary to take the matter to heart. Unless some agreement is reached on it, a great deal of the money which we are voting and spending may be, in some senses, wasted or, at any rate, not as valuably used as it could be. I believe that it is possible to get agreement for linking up our own Health Service with the health service we are anxious to develop in the Colonial Territories. I ask the Under-Secretary to note this point, and to try to take some action on it.

Mr. Tilney: May I add one sentence to what the hon. Gentleman has just said about helping the medical appointments overseas? The Overseas Committee of the B.M.A. has discussed this matter in some detail, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will look into the matter of proleptic appointments.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like to add that, in my own personal experience, I have noted what a remarkable instrument the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts have been in the development of territories overseas. I think we should never forget the pioneer work arising out of the West Indies Royal Commission—the work of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Lord Hailey, Mr. Oliver Stanley and others, in securing and improving this remarkable measure. It has been of tremendous benefit in the life of the British territories overseas.
We have heard nothing today about the great central services operated under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. They are of vital importance. These services are concerned with higher education, and we see the testimony of that in the six or seven new university colleges in various parts of the Commonwealth; in respect to the remarkable research work which is done, the results of which have brought great benefit to vast areas; in the surveying of territories overseas to permit development work to go on; in the training of our administrative people and of technicians for the Colonial Service overseas; and in the provision of information, so that when democracy comes

there will at least be a wider spread of enlightenment. In all these various respects, these central services have been of tremendous importance, not only in the use made of them in our work in London but also in improving standards and conditions in the territories. Therefore, I would like to say how, in my judgment, we have forged here an instrument of immense importance, and one hopes it will be administered with increasing generosity, and will bring even greater results than have been achieved up to now.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. J. Amery: We go forward encouraged by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), for he has great experience of these matters. We have had a full discussion, and the more these problems are ventilated the better it will be for the whole of our colonial policy, and for the crystallisation of views on both sides of the House.
I am sorry that my efforts to meet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on the first Amendment raised did not meet with success, but we did our best, and I am grateful for the good wishes he contributed. I have been doing some homework on the problem raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), so far without very encouraging results, but I may be able to write to them about it in due course.
I think that when historians come to write about the period in which we are now living, and see it in relation to the past, it will be held as one of the tragedies in British imperial and Commonwealth development that development grants on a large scale came so late into the evolution of the British Commonwealth and Empire. It has been my privilege to work as the biographer of Joseph Chamberlain, and I have seen from his letters the fearful struggles he had to extract for the West Indies a few tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds from a very reluctant Treasury.
I know what enormous difficulties my father had in the 'twenties in extracting £1 million for development and welfare, and it is probably a great tragedy that in no quarter of political opinion in those days was there a feeling that we could


help out with great advantage not only to the Colonies concerned but to the whole Commonwealth structure and the free world, with a much greater proportion of our treasure. We might have averted the last war had we done so. However, these things are never too late, and I have no doubt that the kind of work which the Bill is promoting does good to the Colonies, helps this country and plays its part in making the British Commonwealth a strong, independent and vital force for good in the modern world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION, GLASGOW

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E'. Wakefield.]

11.21 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: Education in the City of Glasgow is now in crisis, and it is to that calamity that I desire to direct the attention of the House tonight. The situation is unique. There is nothing to compare with it in the whole of the United Kingdom, and unless remedial action is taken immediately by the Secretary of State for Scotland the education system in Glasgow may well be broken down by the end of this year. For that catastrophe the Secretary of State will be wholly and solely responsible.
I should like to look at one recent effect of teacher shortage. On Tuesday of this week the Joint Under-Secretary of State announced the deferment of the introduction of the new four-year certificate from 1961 to 1962, and the reason was obvious. The working party recommendations could not be implemented without a large recruitment to the present supply of teachers. Teacher shortage is the main reason for the delay in carrying out the recommendations of the working party, despite the fact that in the opinion of the working party, as stated on page 61 of the Report,
The introduction of the new arrangements is educationally so desirable that there must be no question of postponement.
That is exactly what the Under-Secretary intimated on Tuesday that the Government proposed to do.
Additional staff is likely to be required—and here I quote the Report again—
because of (a) an increase in the number of pupils; (b) the provision of the four-year certificate courses in certain schools; (c) the demands of a more flexible organisation of courses; and (d) the development of certain branches of subjects.
What a contradiction. While our planners are trying to build for the future our practitioners on the Government Front Bench are seeking to undermine it. I trust that the suggestion in the current Report of the Advisory Council on Education of a reduction in the qualifications of teachers entering Scottish schools is not one of the methods proposed by the Government to overcome the staffing shortage.
Let me now return specifically to my own city and present to the House the cold, hard facts of the situation as we see it in Glasgow today. The existing shortage of teachers is 900, including 500 now required in the secondary departments of our school service. By 1961, that shortage will have grown to 1,300. At this moment, there are 500 classes in Glasgow which are over-size. There are children in Glasgow who have had to attend oversize classes throughout their primary school life. There are children in Glasgow primary schools who between January of this year and today have had no fewer than six different teachers. No wonder those children present us with many problems when they leave school.
At the beginning of the 1961 session the secondary school roll in Glasgow will increase by 8,000 pupils. Although 92 retired teachers of over 70 years of age and 1,300 married ladies are giving invaluable help in easing the difficulty of staffing shortage, part-time education for many Glasgow children is a certainty for years to come.
That prospect is entirely due to the quiescence of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has completely failed to rise to his responsibilities. Had his inaction not been partially offset by the action of those who have voluntarily returned to serve in Glasgow schools, the education system in our city would almost have been in a state of chaos.
Yet, despite this known crisis in the educational life of Glasgow, many teachers are still engaged on National Service. Teachers are still being withdrawn from the classrooms for National


Service and, because of the shortage, there can be no replacement for those conscripted.
The Knox Committee, which was appointed to inquire into this problem of the shortage of teachers, among other matters, strongly recommended two measures as being likely to bring substantial early relief to the schools. The first was:
…one of the most effective ways of getting more teachers quickly would be to grant indefinite deferment forthwith to teachers.
That Report was presented to the Secretary of State for Scotland in July, 1957. The operative word was "forthwith", but that recommendation has not yet been implemented.
Proof is found in the case of Mr. R. L. Moyes, a teacher of French in Knightswood secondary school, who started his career in January this year, who had fitted himself competently into the school organisation and who has since been plucked out to perform his National Service, notwithstanding every appeal that he should remain. The proposal for deferment is now inadequate and deferment alone cannot meet the case. In my view and in the view of many people in Glasgow, the Secretary of State must demand that all teachers in the Forces should be permitted, if they so desire, immediately to return to teaching.
The Knox Committee made a second recommendation:
the regulation whereby pensions may be reduced cuts off a useful source of supply and appears to us to be not only unjust but unwise.
Two years after that Report, made by some of the most distinguished men in business, in education and in University life in Scotland, the Government are still refusing to abandon that unwise and unjust course. What does this mean? It prevents those teachers who have retired from service and who are entitled to draw their superannuation payments from receiving full pension if they return to teaching. We have the extraordinary situation, to which I drew the attention of the House earlier this month, whereby retired teachers who have resumed teaching, largely from a high sense of social obligation, and who received an increase in their salary as teachers last Novem-

ber, have suffered an equivalent reduction in their pension, thus keeping their total earnings at the pre-retiral level. That situation is so fantastic that one wonders whether there is a spring madness in the Government when they allow it to continue. To alter this "unwise" and "unjust" treatment, to quote the Knox Report, would not require legislation in Scotland but simply a change in the superannuation regulations, and it would apply solely to teachers who had retired.
It should be noted that only teachers who enter the public education service are penalised. One would think that the Government did not like this service, because if any of those teachers were to enter into employment in private schools they could draw their full salaries in such schools and also their full pensions. Equally, if they take any other job but teaching they can draw the salary for that job and the superannuation which they have earned.
There is a third recommendation made by the Knox Committee—that men who are training for teaching should be indefinitely deferred from military service. That is sensible, because we must not cut off supply. If these recommendations had been applied over the last two years there would have been a modification of the serious situation which is arising in Glasgow. If action were to be taken to implement these short-term measures in order that they could be operative before the beginning of this summer, hope for the future of education in the City of Glasgow would begin to revive.
I should like briefly to look at the long-term approach to this problem, because we must never forget that Glasgow is in a special position. In the City of Glasgow we have not been recruiting our fair share of the new entrants to the profession. If we compare 1939 with 1955 we find that the number of qualified teachers increased by 20 per cent., but Glasgow's share was only 8·8 per cent. We lose teachers for a variety of reasons, such as the slowness of promotion, lack of housing, the higher cost of living and the extremely poor quality of some of our older schools. This indicates that in Glasgow there is a case for a salary differential such as we have in London in order to offset the disadvantages of teaching in the City. Owing to the fact that many Glasgow teachers leave the service because


of housing difficulties, the Knox Committee recommended that the Department should review the conditions under which houses can be provided for teachers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to say what has been done in that regard.
There is also the quota system, which operates successfully in England, by which local education authorities each agree to a quota and do not go beyond it in order to ensure that all get a fair share of those leaving the training colleges. It would seem that in view of Glasgow's position some thought might be given to whether it could be operated in Glasgow with equal success.
To the credit of Glasgow Education Committee and the Corporation, despite these difficulties, they have been proceeding with a large-scale building programme. Nine new schools and two major extensions have already been built and twelve others are building or are planned. Each of those schools will need a staffing complement of some fifty teachers. The energy and foresight of the education committee in this matter have complicated their staffing problem. The Government which helps them to proceed with the building of new schools is the same Government which takes away the teachers who are indispensable to the work of the schools. Again, the Secretary of State stands condemned in the eyes of his fellow Scots for his passivity in this matter.
The outlook for education in Glasgow is grim. As the so-called bulge passes into the secondary schools more teachers will be required, but the bulge is not our only problem. It has been assumed that as it leaves the primary school teachers would be able to help at the secondary stage, but this is unlikely for the primary school rolls will be maintained at their present level for as long as can be seen.
We are now on a new plateau in education, and we on this side of the House want to lift the Secretary of State on to it. If he will not come and fails to implement the recommendations I have put before him tonight, he will be denying to the great mass of children in the City of Glasgow the right to a full, sound and uninterrupted education. If he permits part-time education to become a feature in the life of our city he will have given a first-class boost to illiteracy and child delinquency. I appeal to the right

hon. Gentleman, through the Joint Under-Secretary, to take immediate action on the lines I have indicated. Time and tide are both running against him. They wait for no man. Not even for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: No one on this side of the House who represents Glasgow denies the urgency, extent or danger of this very important subject and no one in this House has a deeper interest in or wider knowledge of the subject than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). It is necessary to be brief, but this is an important and urgent subject. One thing that the hon. Member mentioned about the extent of the shortage should, perhaps, be further explained.
It is true that the shortage today appears to be 900, but that is due to a change in the method of calculation. I quote from "Education in Scotland", 1957, which says, on page 54, that the increase in the shortage would not have been nearly so severe except for two changes. One is that of the 92 certificated teachers, whom the hon. Member said were in Glasgow, over 70 in employment are now regarded as requiring replacement. That is the general change. The particular change, responsible for the major part of the increase the hon. Member mentioned, stems from the fact that Glasgow has adopted a more exacting basis and calculated its requirements on classes of under 40 instead of classes of 45, as in previous years. That means that the 1957 figure of 851 would have been 240 but for the changed basis of calculation.
That, of course, does not deny the serious shortage, and the Glasgow Corporation is well aware of it. It has asked the committee of management to see where part-time education can be applied. In addition, the top departments of four of Glasgow's senior secondary schools have been or are being closed. One of them is in my constituency, and the closure is causing great resentment. Such acts as these merely postpone the crisis and will, in fact, only make it worse in the long run.
In the broader aspect, the nation needs more educated manpower, and, therefore, fewer people are going into teaching, and of those who are Glasgow is getting a smaller proportion. Teaching


in Glasgow has become unpopular for many reasons. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned some of them, but perhaps I may be allowed to enumerate some that occur to me. First, almost every class in Glasgow is a large one. Secondly, some councils offer houses to teachers, but Glasgow is unable to do this. That should be reviewed and, perhaps, Government assistance given.
Thirdly, the new schools in the new housing areas aggravate the cost in time and money of travelling to school. Fourthly, rates and rents are high. Fifthly, large staffs are needed in schools of the size of Shawlands, in my constituency, or Whitehill. Sixthly, in Glasgow, the teacher's status is small, whereas in the small town or village it is high. In these days, status is of great value. It is such things as this that keep Glasgow from getting its fair share of the manpower available.
I should like now to make a few suggestions. First, we should consider reinstituting the Glasgow allowance, which used to be £50, and should not, perhaps, confine its payment merely to within the city's boundaries. Secondly, the creation of new promoted posts in large schools—extra second masters, house masters assisting the headmaster in one section of the school, or senior assistant assisting a principal teacher of a large department. Another thing that is very dear to the hearts of teachers is co-option to the education committees. They would probably be disillusioned if they did get on them, but they are very keen on it and it should be considered very seriously.
I underline the plea of the hon. Member for Govan for the abolition of the call-up of men teachers, and I join with him in seeking their recall from the Services. We should do everything we can to get their exemption from call-up and to encourage the recall of those already serving. People of pensionable age who go back into teaching should be paid both their teachers' pension and their wages. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give consideration to some of these points.

11.47 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) regrets that he is unable to answer this important debate,

which I have to answer in seven or seven and a half minutes. It is, of course, quite undeniable that the schools are going through a period of very great difficulty because of the shortage of teachers, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has helped the House by ventilating the question of education in Glasgow. We all share his concern over classes of excessive size and over the frequent changes of teachers as a result of staffing difficulties. These staffing difficulties arise, as he himself pointed out, in part at least from the great educational advances that have been and are being made, and the high standards that are now, rightly, being set.
Glasgow's difficulties are, of course, a reflection of the national shortage of teachers. Perhaps I would be wise to mention, first, the national picture as the two are closely linked. The number of teachers in service in Scottish schools has been steadily growing. In round figures, it has gone from 29,000 in 1945 to 35,000 in 1958. Recruitment is very high and now exceeds 2,000 a year. It was only 1,500 a year before the war, and last year it was the highest ever. During the period the proportion of graduates in the profession has also risen.
It is clear from these advances, in which Glasgow has shared, that our schools are doing more for an increasing number of pupils than ever before. Complaints that education is in a decline are not justified. On the contrary, Scottish education has developed vigorously since the war, and I think this should be more widely recognised. But we are short of about 3,000 teachers in Scotland, and we measure this number not by the standards of the past but by the standards which we are now seeking to attain; and that figure is likely to get worse. It will be 4,000 by 1960–61. There is no single solution. The problems and possibilities lie in many fields. We must be diligent in examining them all in our search for remedial action.
The hon. Member gave us figures with regard to the Glasgow shortage. In 1958 the authority estimated that it needed 926 teachers to fill vacancies, to reduce oversized classes and to replace certificated teachers over 70 and all uncertificated teachers. This represents a shortage of 12 per cent. of posts, as


compared with the general Scottish shortage of 8 per cent. Of the shortage, about 730 related to posts in primary schools, and so the shortage in the secondary schools, which are now beginning to cope with the bulge, is about 200. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the acute difficulties under which the schools are working. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Govan will know, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary met representatives of Glasgow education authority in January and discussed the position with them.
The hon. Member went on to make some practical suggestions, and I will try to deal with as many of them as I can. First, he referred to National Service. The facts are as follows: Since deferment was first granted to teachers in 1956—when it was restricted to graduates with first or second class honours degrees in mathematics or science—it has been extended each year to include other groups of teachers. The Government have been faced with the difficult task of allotting available manpower to the best advantage among the conflicting claims of the Armed Forces, education and of industry and research.
The House may be assured that my right hon. Friend in regard to Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education in regard to England, have not been backward in pressing the needs of the schools. The present situation is that in 1959 no trained teachers will be called up in Scotland, except, on the one hand, a very small group of non-graduates—not more than two or three in all—who have certain qualifications in science or technology, and, on the other hand, any teachers who completed their training before 1959, at a time when, under the arrangements then existing, they were not eligible for deferment.
The teacher in Knightswood falls into the latter group. He completed training in June, 1958, at a time when third class honours graduates in arts—as he is—were not eligible for deferment; his call-up was delayed until March of this year. In the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service it would have been unfair to the man's contemporaries who are already in the Forces if he had been granted deferment exceptionally.
I hope that I have made it clear that teachers as a group are virtually exempt from the call-up. We estimate that about 380 teachers will receive deferment in 1959, and of these at least 180 would not have been eligible by the rules existing last year. Some of these teachers will be available from the end of this month, when their training courses finish, and the others from the beginning of the new school session. A number of these will no doubt enter the service of the Glasgow education authority. This year and next year there will also be between 20 and 30 teachers returning to Glasgow from National Service.
The hon. Member mentioned the question of early release from the Forces. A group of Glasgow parents who met on Monday have sent a resolution on this matter to my right hon. Friend. A similar view was expressed today. As hon. Members will realise, this is a difficult and complex United Kingdom question which is within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service and which involves more than one Ministry. I recognise its importance, and I cannot say more about it tonight.
On the question of retired teachers, the Advisory Council has now made the same suggestion as it made before, which was then turned down. The proposal and modifications to it are now being re-examined. Concerning housing, the Department told Glasgow in 1956 that it would consider sympathetically proposals for construction, adaptation or purchase by the education authority of houses to let to teachers at economic rents. We shall consider again the quota system, although last time we rejected it, and we are looking at the whole question of the report on salaries. This has gone to the National Joint Council, which already has put in hand the next triennial review.
Great advances have, therefore, been made. We shall go on making every possible improvement as circumstances permit and I do not in any way agree that my right hon. Friend has been inactive or complacent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.